Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Woodland Tractor and Equipment Co., Inc. v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, 2:15-CV-02042-MCE-DAD. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170825e01 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND RELATED DEADLINES;ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Plaintiff, Woodland Tractor and Equipment Co., Inc., and Defendant, CNH Industrial America, LLC, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby join in requesting that the Court adjust the Pretrial Scheduling Order by continuing the discovery cut-off for both expert and non-expert discovery, as well as the Motion Hearing Schedule in ord
More

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND RELATED DEADLINES;ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Plaintiff, Woodland Tractor and Equipment Co., Inc., and Defendant, CNH Industrial America, LLC, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby join in requesting that the Court adjust the Pretrial Scheduling Order by continuing the discovery cut-off for both expert and non-expert discovery, as well as the Motion Hearing Schedule in order to allow the parties to complete necessary discovery and participate in a meaningful mediation.

This request is based upon the following stipulation and statement of counsel:

1. Pursuant to the Court's Order [Dkt. # 20], all non-expert discovery is to be completed by August 14, 2017.

2. Pursuant to the Court's Order [Dkt. # 20], expert witness disclosures are to be made by September 4, 2017.

3. Pursuant to the Court's Order [Dkt. # 20], the last day to hear dispositive motions is November 20, 2017.

4. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant have diligently and professionally worked together to timely complete discovery. In addition to initial disclosures, the parties have exchanged multiple sets of written discovery and requests for responsive documents, which was necessary before commencing depositions. The parties currently are engaged in respective meet and confer efforts for recent written discovery each has propounded on the other party.

5. To date, the parties have completed the following depositions:

a) James Burnside (Defendant's former employee) (Volume I) b) Jame Burnside (Defendant's former employee) (Volume II) c) Brad Preston (Defendant's employee) d) Gary Chaney (Defendant's employee) e) Ray Duke (Defendant's employee) f) Seth Tansey (Defendant's employee) g) Jeff Huckins (Plaintiff's President and CEO) (Volume I) h) Jeff Huckins (Plaintiff's President and CEO) (Volume II) i) Jeff Huckins (Plaintiff's President and CEO) (Volume III) j) Tari Vinson (Plaintiff's former employee) k) Jason Brown (Plaintiff's former employee)

6. The parties are also in the process of scheduling multiple 30(b)(6) witnesses and plan to take the depositions of at least four more third-party witnesses. Additionally, the parties are currently waiting for one witness (Larry Filbert, a former employee of Plaintiff) to recover from certain health conditions that to date have made him unavailable for deposition.

7. Further, the parties have exchanged additional written discovery based upon the testimony of the above-noted deponents. The parties have met and conferred, and continue to work together to complete this outstanding discovery.

8. In light of the foregoing, both parties acknowledge and request that the non-expert discovery cut-off to be continued to complete all outstanding discovery. Both parties also acknowledge that the expert disclosure deadline and dispositive motion deadlines have been correspondingly impacted. In order for the parties to make complete expert disclosures and prepare fully supported dispositive motions, the completion of all non-expert discovery must be done first.

9. Additionally, at the conclusion of non-expert discovery, the parties have expressed interest and an intent to participate in private mediation in hopes of resolving this matter prior to trial.

10. As the parties have been cooperating to complete discovery as efficiently as possible, have agreed to complete the outstanding depositions and potential additional discovery as soon as reasonably possible, have agreed that the completion of non-expert discovery is necessary before completion of expert disclosures and dispositive motions, and plan to participate in meaningful mediation, the parties request continuance of the non-expert discovery completion deadline, expert disclosure deadline, and last day for hearing dispositive motions (including the related Motion Hearing Schedule).

11. Accordingly, good cause exists to continue the non-expert discovery deadline and the parties jointly request that the Court further amend the AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER as follows:

Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Completion of non-expert August 14, 2017 September 29, 2017 Discovery, as defined in Section I of Dkt. #16 Disclosure of Expert September 4, 2017 October 20, 2017 Witnesses Last Day to Hear Dispositive November 20, 2017 Janury 15, 2017 Motions and accompanying Motion Hearing Scheduling

ORDER

Upon reviewing the parties Joint Stipulation to Continue the Discovery Cut-Off and Related Deadlines, and the Court finding good cause to modify its May 17, 2017 Order, the Court Orders as follows:

The current non-expert discovery completion date of August 14, 2017, is hereby continued to September 29, 2017.

The current expert disclosure deadline of September 4, 2017, is hereby continued to October 20, 2017.

The last day to hear dispositive motions of November 20, 2017 and the accompanying Motion Hearing Schedule is hereby continued to January 15, 2017.

The parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty (30) days after receiving this Court's ruling on the last filed dispositive motion. The parties are to set forth in their Notice of Trial Readiness, the appropriateness of special procedures, whether this case is related to any other case(s) on file in the Eastern District of California, the prospect for settlement, their estimated trial length, any request for a jury, and their availability for trial. After review of the parties' Joint Notice of Trial Readiness, the Court will issue an order that sets forth new dates for a final pretrial conference and trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer