United States of America ex rel. Toni S. Lee, et al. v. Barco Uniforms, Inc., et al.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedDecember 19, 2025
Docket2:16-cv-01805
StatusUnknown

This text of United States of America ex rel. Toni S. Lee, et al. v. Barco Uniforms, Inc., et al. (United States of America ex rel. Toni S. Lee, et al. v. Barco Uniforms, Inc., et al.) 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
United States of America ex rel. Toni S. Lee, et al. v. Barco Uniforms, Inc., et al., (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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel., No. 2:16-cv-01805-DC-JDP TONI S. LEE, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 SCHEDULING ORDER v. 14 BARCO UNIFORMS, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reviewed the 18 parties’ joint status report (Doc. No. 97) and has determined that the court need not “consult[] 19 with the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference,” before 20 issuing a scheduling order in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(B). 21 I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 22 Defendant Barco Uniforms, Inc. and Defendant Kenny Chan have been served as required 23 by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and have appeared in this action. Plaintiff United States 24 contends that the named entity defendants, Defendants Able Allied Limited; Nathan Global 25 Direct, Inc.; J & K Garment, Inc.; Mega Goodwill Ltd.; JS Garment Co.; and Superway Import & 26 Export, Inc.; were served by virtue of personal service made on Defendant Kenny Chan, who is 27 an owner, manager, or controlling partner of those entities. (Doc. Nos. 97 at 7, 70.) Plaintiff 28 represents that they have made multiple attempts to serve the remaining named defendant, 1 Defendant David Chan, who resides outside of the United States. Plaintiff shall file a status report 2 regarding the status of service on Defendant David Chan by no later than thirty (30) days from 3 the date of entry of this order. 4 No further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). 6 II. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 7 The parties do not anticipate the joinder of additional parties or amendment of the 8 pleadings. 9 No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of 10 court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth 11 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 27 604 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the filing of 12 motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to 13 modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 609. 14 Moreover, any amendment requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not be: 15 (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or 16 (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 17 III. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES 18 Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case are referred to the 19 assigned magistrate judge, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to his or her procedures. 20 (The assigned magistrate judge’s initials follow the district judge’s initials next to the case 21 number.) All discovery related filings must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the 22 caption to ensure proper routing. Do not direct delivery of courtesy copies of these documents to 23 the district judge. Counsel are directed to contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom deputy clerk 24 to schedule discovery matters for hearing. 25 All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the assigned magistrate judge’s 26 calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and the magistrate judge’s own 27 procedures. The written ruling of the assigned magistrate judge shall be final, subject to 28 modification by the district court only where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order 1 is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Local Rule 303, 2 any party may file and serve a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate 3 Judge’s Ruling.” See L.R. 303(c). The requesting party must file and serve any such request 4 within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling. L.R. 303(b). The request must specify 5 which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the basis for that 6 contention with supporting points and authorities. L.R. 303(c). 7 In addition, the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective 8 orders sought by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. However, any requests to seal or redact 9 in connection with trial or motions to be resolved by Judge Coggins must be directed to Judge 10 Coggins and comply with her Standing Order and Local Rules 140 and 141. 11 IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES 12 A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures 13 The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 Rule 26(a)(1) no later than 14 days after the date of entry of this scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 26(a)(1)(C). 16 Any parties served or joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall “make the 17 initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined,” as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(D). 18 B. Fact Discovery 19 All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than July 10, 2026. 20 The parties do not propose any limitations or changes to the governing provisions of the 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, other than the parties’ agreement that to permit 15 depositions 22 and 30 interrogatories. (Doc. No. 97 at 9.) 23 C. Expert Discovery 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 Disclosures of expert witnesses, if any, must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information required thereunder. Each 3 expert witness must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the 4 disclosures. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the imposition of appropriate 5 sanctions, including the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence offered through 6 the expert. 7 The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than August 10, 2026.

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)
United States of America ex rel. Toni S. Lee, et al. v. Barco Uniforms, Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-toni-s-lee-et-al-v-barco-uniforms-caed-2025.