Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJanuary 22, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-01169
StatusUnknown

This text of Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, 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
Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 LILLIANA SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01169-NODJ-CDB 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 v. Discovery Deadlines: - Rule 26 Disclosures: March 19, 2024 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION - Amended Pleadings: March 19, 2024 SOLUTIONS, INC., EQUIFAX - Expert Disclosures: August 2, 2024 15 INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC - Rebuttal Disclosures: August 30, 2024 - Fact Discovery Cut-Off: July 19, 2024 16 Defendants. - Expert Discovery Cut-Off: September 30, 2024 - Mid-Discovery Status Conference: June 7, 17 2024, at 9:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 18 93301

19 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: - Filing: October 9, 2024 20 - Hearing: On November 13, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 21 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 22 - Filing: December 14, 2024 - Hearing: January 27, 2025, 1:30 p.m,, in Robert 23 E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, Courtroom 5, 7th Floor 24 Pre-Trial Conference: March 10, 2025, at 1:30 25 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse

26 Trial: May 5, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse 27 28 1 Plaintiff Lilliana Sanchez initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in state court on 2 June 22, 2023. (Doc. 1-1 p. 14). Thereafter, the action was removed to this Court on August 4, 3 2023. Plaintiff raises claims against Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), 4 under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 5 The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before 6 Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on January 19, 2024. Gerardo Sosa appeared on behalf of 7 Plaintiff; Amy Lopez appeared on behalf of Defendant Experian.1 8 I. Magistrate Judge Consent: 9 Currently the parties do not jointly consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 10 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 11 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 12 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 13 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 14 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 15 Further, as of the date of entry of this scheduling order, this matter is assigned to “No District 16 Court Judge (NODJ)” until a new district judge is appointed.2 17 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 18 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 19 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 20 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 21 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 22 United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 23 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 24

25 1 Because Plaintiff and Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”), had 26 filed a notice of settlement (Doc. 18), counsel for Plaintiff did not oppose proceeding with the scheduling conference notwithstanding the nonappearance of Equifax. 27 2 Contact information for the NODJ chambers and courtroom deputy can be found at 28 https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-district-judge- nodj/. Proposed orders for a District Judge in this case should be sent to 1 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 2 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 3 Magistrate Judge. 4 II. Pleading Amendment 5 Any motions to amend the pleadings or substitute “Doe” defendants must be filed by March 19, 6 2024. Filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on the 7 propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All 8 proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the 9 amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 10 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an 11 amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in 12 bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 13 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 14 Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be exchanged by no later than 15 March 19, 2024. 16 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before July 19, 17 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before September 30, 2024. 18 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before August 2, 2024, 19 and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before August 30, 2024. The written designation of retained 20 and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and 21 shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this 22 order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts 23 that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 24 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 25 and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 26 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 27 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 28 1 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 2 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 3 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for June 7, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge 4 Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report no later than one week 5 before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report via e-mail to 6 CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery counsel have 7 completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing the 8 discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel SHALL discuss settlement and certify in 9 the joint status report (1) that they have met/conferred regarding settlement, and (2) proposed dates for 10 convening a settlement conference before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. 11 IV.

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

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-experian-information-solutions-inc-caed-2024.