Krenitsky v. Kirsch, 2:18-cv-0690 WBS DB P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190130969
Visitors: 27
Filed: Jan. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . This court held a status conference on January 25, 2019. Lawrance Bohm appeared for plaintiff. Catherine Woodbridge appeared for defendants Jackson and Martinez. Kristina Doan Strottman appeared for defendant Kirsch. Counsel informed the court that they had stipulated to extend the discovery deadline for ten months after which they would likely be prepared to participate in settlement discussions. In addition, Ms. Woodbridge agreed that the pending
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . This court held a status conference on January 25, 2019. Lawrance Bohm appeared for plaintiff. Catherine Woodbridge appeared for defendants Jackson and Martinez. Kristina Doan Strottman appeared for defendant Kirsch. Counsel informed the court that they had stipulated to extend the discovery deadline for ten months after which they would likely be prepared to participate in settlement discussions. In addition, Ms. Woodbridge agreed that the pending ..
More
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
This court held a status conference on January 25, 2019. Lawrance Bohm appeared for plaintiff. Catherine Woodbridge appeared for defendants Jackson and Martinez. Kristina Doan Strottman appeared for defendant Kirsch. Counsel informed the court that they had stipulated to extend the discovery deadline for ten months after which they would likely be prepared to participate in settlement discussions. In addition, Ms. Woodbridge agreed that the pending motion to compel should be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The discovery deadline is extended through November 25, 2019. Any motions to compel discovery should be filed by that date.
2. By December 2, 2019, the parties shall file a joint statement which addresses the following issues:
a. Whether they are prepared to engage in a settlement conference and, if so, whether they waive disqualification for the undersigned to hold the settlement conference, or whether they choose to have the settlement conference held by a different judge;
b. A proposed schedule for any anticipated pretrial motions, a pretrial conference, and trial;
c. Whether this matter is to be tried before this court or the district court, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); and
d. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.
3. Defendants Jackson and Martinez's motion to compel (ECF No. 27) is dismissed without prejudice.
4. Counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. E.D. Cal. R. 160.
Source: Leagle
