Robert Levy v. Nissan North America, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedOctober 21, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-01768
StatusUnknown

This text of Robert Levy v. Nissan North America, Inc. (Robert Levy v. Nissan North America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert Levy v. Nissan North America, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT LEVY, No. 2:25-cv-1768 AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SCHEDULING ORDER 14 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent. ECF No. 15. 19 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has reviewed the parties’ 20 joint status report (ECF No. 11) and has determined that the court need not “consult[] with the 21 parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference,” before issuing a 22 scheduling order in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the court deems an 23 initial scheduling conference unnecessary and hereby issues this scheduling order. 24 SERVICE OF PROCESS 25 The named defendant has been served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. 26 No further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown under 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). 28 //// 1 JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 2 The parties do not anticipate the joinder of additional parties or amendment of the 3 pleadings, but plaintiff asks to reserve the right to do so as the case proceeds. No further joinder 4 of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having 5 been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 27 604 6 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the filing of motions and/or stipulations requesting 7 leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 609. Moreover, any amendment requested under 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not be: (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the 10 product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 11 178, 182 (1962). 12 JURISDICTION/VENUE 13 Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and undisputed. Venue is also 14 undisputed and found to be proper. 15 DISCOVERY 16 The parties have agreed to exchange initial disclosures by November 17, 2025. Pursuant 17 to the parties’ stipulation, all discovery shall be completed by May 29, 2026. The word 18 “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been 19 taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if 20 necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. Motions to 21 compel discovery must be noticed on the undersigned’s calendar in accordance with the Local 22 Rules and must be heard not later than May 8, 2026. 23 The parties are reminded to review the “Standing Orders” posted on Judge Claire’s 24 webpage (http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states- 25 magistrate-judge-allison-claire-ac/). The undersigned encourages early resolution of discovery 26 disputes outside the formal Local Rule 251 procedures, when appropriate. Upon order of the 27 court, or by agreement of the parties, Judge Claire will resolve minor or discrete discovery 28 disputes by conducting an informal telephonic conference. Additional information is available on 1 the court’s website linked above. 2 EXPERT DISCLOSURE 3 The parties are to designate in writing, and serve upon all other parties, the names of all 4 experts they propose to tender at trial in accordance with the following schedule: initial expert 5 disclosures on or before June 19, 2026; rebuttal expert disclosures on or before July 17, 2026. 6 Expert discovery closes on August 12, 2026. 7 An expert witness not appearing on said lists will not be permitted to testify unless the 8 party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of the witness could not have been 9 reasonably anticipated at the time the lists were exchanged; (b) the court and opposing counsel 10 were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly 11 proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required along with the expert 12 designation may lead to preclusion of the expert’s testimony or other appropriate sanctions. 13 For the purposes of this scheduling order, experts are defined as “percipient” and 14 “Rule 26” experts. Both types of experts shall be listed. Percipient experts are persons who, 15 because of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work 16 duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the case. Another term for their opinions are 17 “historical opinions.” Percipient experts are experts who, unless also designated as Rule 26 18 experts, are limited to testifying to their historical opinions and the reasons for them. That is, 19 they may be asked to testify about their opinions given in the past and the whys and wherefores 20 concerning the development of those opinions. However, they may not be asked to render a 21 current opinion for the purposes of the litigation. 22 Rule 26 experts, who may be percipient experts as well, shall be specifically designated 23 by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of the litigation. The Rule 26 expert may 24 express opinions formed for the purposes of the litigation. A party designating a Rule 26 expert 25 will be assumed to have acquired the express permission of the witness to be so listed. 26 The parties shall comply with the information disclosure provisions of Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) for any expert, who is in whole or in part designated as a Rule 26 expert. 28 This information is due at the time of designation. Failure to supply the required information may 1 result in the Rule 26 expert being stricken. All Rule 26 experts are to be fully prepared to render 2 an informed opinion at the time of designation so that they may fully participate in any deposition 3 taken by the opposing party. Rule 26 experts will not be permitted to testify at trial as to any 4 information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, which should have been reasonably 5 available at the time of designation. The court will closely scrutinize for discovery abuse 6 deposition opinions which differ markedly in nature and/or in bases from those expressed in the 7 mandatory information disclosure. 8 JOINT MID-LITIGATION STATEMENTS 9 Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the close of discovery, the parties shall file with 10 the court a brief joint statement summarizing all law and motion practice heard by the court as of 11 the date of the filing of the statement, whether the court has disposed of the motion at the time the 12 statement is filed and served, and the likelihood that any further motions will be noticed prior to 13 the close of law and motion. The filing of this statement shall not relieve the parties or counsel of 14 their obligation to timely notice all appropriate motions as set forth herein. 15 MOTION HEARING SCHEDULES 16 All law and motion, except as to discovery, shall be completed by August 21, 2026.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert Levy v. Nissan North America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-levy-v-nissan-north-america-inc-caed-2025.