Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Sweeney, 2:17-cv-00112-KJM-KJN. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180413a56 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULE KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Pursuant Local Rule 143, the parties hereby stipulate, move, and propose that the Court amend the controlling "Scheduling Order," i.e., the Court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order dated June 29, 2017 (ECF No. 20) and most recent amendment dated March 6, 2018 (ECF No. 50). The parties submit that good cause supports the amendments proposed below not only because the parties agree to them, but also because their
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULE

Pursuant Local Rule 143, the parties hereby stipulate, move, and propose that the Court amend the controlling "Scheduling Order," i.e., the Court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order dated June 29, 2017 (ECF No. 20) and most recent amendment dated March 6, 2018 (ECF No. 50). The parties submit that good cause supports the amendments proposed below not only because the parties agree to them, but also because their agreement follows their meeting and conferring about Defendants' contention that more time is needed for expert reports, Plaintiff's contention that more financial discovery is due from Defendants; and the parties' continued participation in mediation before the United States Magistrate Judge. At this time, the parties do not propose any amendment to the current trial date or trial-associated deadlines.1

1. Any joinder of parties or amendments to the pleadings shall be filed by July 19, 2018 (rather than the current deadline of April 16, 2018).

2. The parties shall provide opening expert reports by July 27, 2018 (rather than the current deadline of June 8, 2018).

3. The parties shall provide responsive expert reports by September 25, 2018 (rather than the current deadline of July 27, 2018).

4. All discovery (fact or expert) shall conclude by December 20, 2018 (in place of the direction in the Scheduling Order that "[a]ll expert discovery shall be completed by September 10, 2018," ECF No. 20 at 4:12).

5. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be heard no later than February 19, 2019 (rather than the current deadline of November 16, 2018).

6. Unless the Court directs otherwise at the mid-litigation status conference, scheduled for October 25, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. or at any hearing on any dispositive motion, at this time there are no changes to all remaining deadlines-regarding, for example, the joint pretrial conference statement; motions in limine; the final pretrial conference; and trial scheduling-as set forth in the Scheduling Order.

7. Except as provided in Paragraphs 1-6 above, the Scheduling Order remains in effect.

ORDER

Upon due consideration, and good cause shown, the Court approves the following schedule:

1. Any joinder of parties or amendments to the pleadings shall be filed by July 19, 2018 (rather than the current deadline of April 16, 2018).

2. The parties shall provide opening expert reports by July 27, 2018 (rather than the current deadline of June 8, 2018).

3. The parties shall provide responsive expert reports by September 25, 2018 (rather than the current deadline of July 27, 2018).

4. All discovery (fact or expert) shall conclude by December 20, 2018 (in place of the direction in the Scheduling Order that "[a]ll expert discovery shall be completed by September 10, 2018," ECF No. 20 at 4:12).

5. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be heard no later than February 22, 2019 (rather than the current deadline of November 16, 2018).

6. Unless otherwise directed by the Court at the mid-litigation status conference, scheduled for October 25, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. or at any hearing on any dispositive motion, at this time there are no changes to all remaining deadlines-regarding, for example, the joint pretrial conference statement; motions in limine; the final pretrial conference; and trial scheduling-as set forth in the Scheduling Order.

7. Except as provided in Paragraphs 1-6 above, the Scheduling Order remains in effect.

FootNotes


1. This Stipulation and proposed Order uses terms like "opening expert reports" and "responsive expert reports," which carry the same meaning as provided in the Court's Scheduling Order.
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