Toch v. National Distribution Centers, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedApril 30, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-03617
StatusUnknown

This text of Toch v. National Distribution Centers, LLC (Toch v. National Distribution Centers, LLC) 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
Toch v. National Distribution Centers, LLC, (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 SARATH TOCH, No. 2:24-cv-03617-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SCHEDULING ORDER 14 NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has reviewed the 19 parties’ joint status report (Doc. No. 17) and has determined that the court need not “consult[] 20 with the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference,” before 21 issuing a scheduling order in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the court 22 vacates the initial scheduling conference set for May 12, 2025 and hereby issues this scheduling 23 order. 24 I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 25 The named defendants have 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 II. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 2 The parties do not anticipate the joinder of additional parties or amendment of the 3 pleadings. 4 No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of 5 court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth 6 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 27 604 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the filing of 7 motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to 8 modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 609. 9 Moreover, any amendment requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not be: 10 (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or 11 (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 12 III. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES 13 Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case or that do not relate to 14 sealing or redaction of documents related to dispositive motions are referred to the assigned 15 United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to his or her 16 procedures. (The assigned magistrate judge’s initials follow the district judge’s initials next to the 17 case number.) All discovery documents must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in 18 the caption to ensure proper routing. Do not direct delivery of courtesy copies of these 19 documents to the district judge. Counsel are directed to contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom 20 deputy clerk to schedule discovery matters for hearing. 21 All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the assigned magistrate judge’s 22 calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and the magistrate judge’s own 23 procedures. The written ruling of the assigned magistrate judge shall be final, subject to 24 modification by the district court only where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order 25 is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Local Rule 26 303, any party may file and serve a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of 27 Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See L.R. 303(c). The requesting party must file and serve any such 28 request within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling. L.R. 303(b). The request must 1 specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the basis for that 2 contention with supporting points and authorities. L.R. 303(c). 3 In addition, the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective 4 orders sought by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. However, requests to seal or redact in 5 connection with dispositive motions or trial are decided by Judge Drozd and any such requests 6 must comply with Judge Drozd’s Standing Order and Local Rules 140 and 141. 7 IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES 8 A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures 9 The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 Rule 26(a)(1) by no later than June 4, 2025, which is a date proposed by the parties. (Doc. 11 No. 17 at 6.) 12 Any parties served or joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall “make the 13 initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined,” as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(D). 14 B. Fact Discovery 15 All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than December 15, 2025, a date proposed 16 by the parties. (Doc. No. 17 at 11.) 17 The parties do not propose any limitations or changes to the governing provisions of the 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19 C. Expert Discovery 20 Disclosures of expert witnesses, if any, must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information required thereunder. Each 22 expert witness must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the 23 disclosures. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the imposition of 24 1 As used herein, the word “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so 25 that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has 26 been obeyed. The parties are advised that motions to compel must be filed in advance of the 27 discovery completion deadlines so that the court may grant effective relief within the allotted discovery time. A party’s failure to have a discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the 28 discovery cutoff may result in denial of the motion as untimely. 1 appropriate sanctions, including the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence 2 offered through the expert. 3 The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal 4 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than December 22, 2025. With regard to expert 5 testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in 6 accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before January 5, 2026, a date 7 proposed by the parties. (Id.) 8 All expert discovery shall be completed no later than January 15, 2026, a date proposed 9 by the parties. (Id.) 10 V. MOTIONS 11 All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other 12 emergency applications, shall be filed on or before February 27, 2026 and shall be noticed for 13 hearing before Judge Drozd on a date not more than 60 days from the date the motion is filed and 14 on a date that is consistent with Judge Drozd’s Standing Order.

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)
Toch v. National Distribution Centers, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toch-v-national-distribution-centers-llc-caed-2025.