Sharp Memorial Hospital v. Medi-Excel, S.A. De C.V.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided April 23, 2025·No. 3:24-cv-00511·Unknown

Opinion

SHARP MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Case No.: 24-cv-00511-WQH-JLB

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT v. MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendant. [ECF No. 37] Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 37.) The Court held a Status Conference to discuss the Joint Motion on April 18, 2025. (ECF No. 39.) For the reasons discussed during the Status Conference, the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART, and the Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 17, 31) is modified as follows: 1. The fact discovery deadline is continued to May 29, 2025 for the limited purposes of (1) concluding the depositions that have already been noticed by the parties, and (2) allowing Plaintiff to take up to three additional depositions related to a contention interrogatory response, as discussed during the April 18, 2025 Status Conference. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Civil Local Rule 26.1.a. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s attention in the time and manner required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. All discovery disputes must be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of an objection, answer, or response that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel (and any unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § V. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. 2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by May 30, 2025. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by June 11, 2025. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 3. By July 2, 2025, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by July 14, 2025. 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 28, 2025. The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery. 6. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 7. All other pretrial motions must be filed by August 18, 2025. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Civil Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the district judge. 8. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video conference1 on August 6, 2025 at 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference are attached to the initial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 17). The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between the attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3.h.

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

Sharp Memorial Hospital v. Medi-Excel, S.A. De C.V., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Sharp Memorial Hospital v. Medi-Excel, S.A. De C.V. (Sharp Memorial Hospital v. Medi-Excel, S.A. De C.V.) — 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)