Filed: Oct. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER ONLY TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATES TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . RECITALS A. On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in state court. B. On June 22, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal. C. On October 16, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order. The scheduling order set an expert witness disclosure deadline of October 25, 2018, with supplemental expert witness disclosures due 20 days thereafter. D. The parties engag
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER ONLY TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATES TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . RECITALS A. On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in state court. B. On June 22, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal. C. On October 16, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order. The scheduling order set an expert witness disclosure deadline of October 25, 2018, with supplemental expert witness disclosures due 20 days thereafter. D. The parties engage..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER ONLY TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATES
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
RECITALS
A. On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in state court.
B. On June 22, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal.
C. On October 16, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order. The scheduling order set an expert witness disclosure deadline of October 25, 2018, with supplemental expert witness disclosures due 20 days thereafter.
D. The parties engaged in substantial non-expert discovery, including various depositions and several rounds of written discovery.
E. Following this discovery, the parties have engaged in settlement discussions in an effort to resolve this case and they are still engaged in such settlement discussions.
F. The parties require a short amount of additional time to designate expert witnesses. They believe that such an extension of time will also allow them to focus on settlement discussions in further efforts to resolve this case.
G. When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice of the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) ("The district court may modify the pretrial schedule `if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.'").
H. There have been no prior modifications of the scheduling order.
STIPULATION
IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, that the expert disclosure deadlines be modified as follows:
Matter Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline
Expert designations, October 25, 2018 November 30, 2018
including expert reports
Supplemental November 14, 2018 December 15, 2018
designations, including
expert reports
The parties do not ask the Court to modify the scheduling order in any other respect, and they believe the extensions of time requested by this Stipulation do not require any other modifications.
ORDER
The Court has reviewed and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing, approves it.
IT IS ORDERED that the Scheduling Order is modified as follows:
Matter New Deadline
Expert designations, including November 30, 2018
expert reports
Supplemental designations, December 15, 2018
including expert reports
