Ross Stibor v. ESA Management, LLC

District Court, S.D. California·Decided March 20, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-03787·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ROSS STIBOR, Case No.: 25-cv-03787-JAH-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

15 Defendant. [ECF No. 16] 16 17 Before the Court is a Joint Motion1 to Modify the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 16.) 18 The parties seek to extend all pretrial dates and deadlines, including discovery and pretrial 19 motions, by approximately 60 days. (Id.) The Court held a Status Conference to address 20 the Joint Motion on March 19, 2026. (ECF No. 18.) Good cause appearing, the Joint 21 Motion is GRANTED, and the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12) is modified as follows: 22 1. The Court understands that parties to litigation often enter into stipulations 23 that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information 24 not be revealed or be revealed only in specified way. Any motion for a protective order 25 entering such stipulation(s) in this case shall be filed as a joint motion no later than 26

27 1 Per this District’s Local Rules, “[a]ny stipulation for which court approval is sought 28 1 April 28, 2026, and comply with § VI of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil 2 Chambers Rules. The parties may use Judge Burkhardt’s model protective order, which is 3 available on the Court’s website under her Chambers Rules.2 4 If the need for a protective order is not initially apparent to the parties and only 5 becomes apparent due to a later development in the case, the parties must seek leave to file 6 a late motion for protective order. Any such motion shall be supported by good cause, 7 which includes an explanation as to why the parties could not have anticipated the need for 8 a protective order. 9 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 10 pleadings shall be filed by May 5, 2026. 11 3. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by September 8, 2026. 12 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 13 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 14 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 15 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 16 Civil Procedure. All interrogatories, requests for admission, and document production 17 requests must be served by July 14, 2026. 18 Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all 19 discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel 20 to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and 21 confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel shall file 22 an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined in the undersigned 23 magistrate judge’s chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a 24 waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation 25 continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. 26

27 2 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/burkhardt/docs/Burkhardt%20Model 28 1 Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s attention in the time and manner 2 required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. All discovery disputes must 3 be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of an objection, answer, or response 4 that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response 5 or production, and only after counsel (and any unrepresented parties) have met and 6 conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § V. 7 4. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 8 October 6, 2026. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 9 evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not 10 limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by 11 October 20, 2026. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone 12 number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to 13 provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and 14 trial testimony. 15 5. By November 17, 2026, each party shall comply with the disclosure 16 provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This 17 disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide 18 expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving 19 of expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails 20 to make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to 21 use evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In 22 addition, the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 23 6. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 24 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by December 1, 2026. 25 7. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by December 29, 2026. 26 The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing 27 fact discovery. 28 /// 1 8. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 2 may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 3 the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 4 9. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video 5 conference3 on January 19, 2027, at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. 6 Burkhardt. Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference 7 are attached. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between 8 the attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to 9 achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, 10 privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3(h). 11 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 12 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority4 to negotiate and enter into a binding 13 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 14 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case 15 of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel 16 must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an 17

18 3 If any party believes the MSC is more likely to be successful if conducted in-person, 19 that party shall meet and confer on the issue with the other parties. After meeting and conferring, and no later than 60 days before the MSC, the parties shall leave a joint 20 voicemail with chambers at (619) 557-6624 indicating which of the parties requests an in- 21 person MSC. In the voicemail, the parties shall leave three mutually available dates for a telephonic status conference to discuss whether the MSC should be held in-person. The 22 final decision will be made by the Court.

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

Ross Stibor v. ESA Management, LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Ross Stibor v. ESA Management, LLC (Ross Stibor v. ESA Management, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Arizona, 2003)