Schoenbeck v. United States

District Court, S.D. California·Decided July 11, 2025·No. 3:23-cv-01635·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 THOMAS J. SCHOENBECK, Case No.: 23-cv-01635-RSH-JLB

14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX 15 v. PARTE MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

17 Defendant. [ECF No. 50] 18 19 Before the Court is an Ex Parte Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiff 20 Thomas J. Schoenbeck (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate 21 the deadlines contained in the Court’s May 28, 2025, Scheduling Order and extend the 22 discovery deadlines pending a new Case Management Conference with the participation 23 of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”). 24 (Id. at 1.) Defendant filed a response. (ECF No. 55.) On July 9, 2025, the Court held a 25 hearing on the motion. (ECF No. 59.) As discussed during the hearing, the Court 26 GRANTS IN PART the Ex Parte Motion, and amends the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 27 48) as follows: 28 /// 1 1. Counsel shall refer to the Civil Pretrial and Trial Procedures for the 2 Honorable Robert S. Huie and the Civil Chambers Rules of the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, 3 which are accessible via the Court’s website at www.casd.uscourts.gov. 4 2. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by September 5, 2025. 5 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30–36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 6 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 7 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 8 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 9 Civil Procedure. 10 The parties shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all 11 discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects the parties 12 to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and 13 confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the parties shall 14 file an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined in the undersigned 15 magistrate judge’s chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver 16 of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or 17 altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. 18 Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s attention in the time and manner 19 required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. All discovery disputes must 20 be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of an objection, answer, or response 21 that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response 22 or production, and only after counsel (and any unrepresented parties) have met and 23 conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § V. 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 1 “Counsel” shall be defined herein to include any party representing himself or 28 1 3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 2 October 3, 2025. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 3 evidence pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703 or 705. This requirement is not 4 limited to retained experts. The date for designation of rebuttal experts shall be 5 October 17, 2025. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone 6 number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to 7 provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and 8 trial testimony. 9 4. All expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be served on 10 all parties on or before November 14, 2025. Any contradictory or rebuttal information 11 shall be disclosed on or before November 28, 2025. In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) 12 imposes a duty on the parties to supplement the expert disclosures made pursuant to Fed. 13 R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) by the time that pretrial disclosures are due under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 26(a)(3) (discussed below). This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or 15 specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the 16 party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony. 17 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by January 9, 2026. The parties shall 18 comply with the same procedures set forth in Paragraph 2 concerning fact discovery. 19 6. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video 20 conference2 on August 21, 2025, at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. 21 Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference are attached. 22 The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between the attorneys, 23

24 2 If any party believes the MSC is more likely to be successful if conducted in-person, 25 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 26 voicemail with chambers at (619) 557-6624 indicating which of the parties requests an in- 27 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 28 1 parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve a 2 mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, privileged, 3 and confidential. See CivLR 16.3(h). 4 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 5 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority3 to negotiate and enter into a binding 6 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 7 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case 8 of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel 9 must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an 10 amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). 11 The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case 12 during the course of the conference without consulting a superior. 13 Counsel for a United States government entity may be excused from this 14 requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the MSC conference (1) has 15 primary responsibility for handling the case, and (2) may negotiate settlement offers which 16 the attorney is willing to recommend to the government official having ultimate settlement 17 authority. 18 Failure to attend the MSC or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds 19 for sanctions. 20 /// 21 22 23 3 “Full authority to settle” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement 24 terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 25 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 26 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement 27 authority to attend the conference includes that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486.

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

Schoenbeck v. United States, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Schoenbeck v. United States (Schoenbeck v. United States) — 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)