Silvia v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 15-cv-04677-PSG. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160511994
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 10, 2016
Latest Update: May 10, 2016
Summary: CASE SCHEDULING ORDER (Re: Docket No. 18) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . The court held a case management conference in this matter on December 2, 2015. 1 Subsequently, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, 2 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint 3 and three of the four Defendants filed their answers to the operative complaint. 4 Because the pleadings will soon be fixed, the court sets a schedule based on the parties' most recent joint case management statement 5 as fo
Summary: CASE SCHEDULING ORDER (Re: Docket No. 18) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . The court held a case management conference in this matter on December 2, 2015. 1 Subsequently, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, 2 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint 3 and three of the four Defendants filed their answers to the operative complaint. 4 Because the pleadings will soon be fixed, the court sets a schedule based on the parties' most recent joint case management statement 5 as fol..
More
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER
(Re: Docket No. 18)
PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.
The court held a case management conference in this matter on December 2, 2015.1 Subsequently, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss,2 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint3 and three of the four Defendants filed their answers to the operative complaint.4 Because the pleadings will soon be fixed, the court sets a schedule based on the parties' most recent joint case management statement5 as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that the presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case, except as follows:
For both fact and expert depositions, the [p]arties will work in good faith to agree to the date and location for depositions of the Defendants' employees so that no party suffers excessive burden caused by another party's request to depose such employees. No fact witness shall be deposed for more than seven (7) hours total absent an agreement between the [p]arties or leave of the [c]ourt. Each 7 hours of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (from a single notice) constitutes 1 deposition, regardless of the number of witnesses. No single witness may be deposed longer than 14 hours total even if deposed in his personal capacity and as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, and the [p]arties will work in good faith to limit the total deposition time of any such witness. No [p]arty will use a Rule 30(b)(6) notice to seek the legal contentions of the opposing parties. Each side may serve up to 25 written interrogatories and up to 40 requests for admission upon the opposing side, not including any requests for admission relating to authenticity. Discrete subparts in any interrogatory will each count as a separate interrogatory.6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this case:
Fact Discovery Cut-Off December 15, 2016
Disclosure of Opening Experts and Reports January 12, 2017
Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts and Reports January 26, 2017
Expert Discovery Cut-Off February 9, 2017
Dispositive Motions Filing Deadline February 23, 2017
Dispositive Motions Hearing April 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM
Pre-Trial Conference June 20, 2017 at 10:00 AM
Jury Trial July 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Docket No. 24.
2. See Docket No. 36.
3. See Docket No. 37.
4. See Docket Nos. 43, 44. Due to a recent substitution of counsel, the parties stipulated that Defendant Verizon California, Inc. will file an answer by May 31, 2016. See Docket Nos. 41, 42.
5. See Docket No. 18.
6. Docket No. 18 at 8.
Source: Leagle
