Filed: Oct. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; PROPOSED ORDER Contra Costa Co. Sup. Court Case No: C16-01453 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . The parties to the above action, by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Due to several changes made to the scheduling of deadlines and other dates in this case, the sequence and timing of discovery, mediation and dispositive motion practice are no longer in the sequence which the Court originally set and or
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; PROPOSED ORDER Contra Costa Co. Sup. Court Case No: C16-01453 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . The parties to the above action, by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Due to several changes made to the scheduling of deadlines and other dates in this case, the sequence and timing of discovery, mediation and dispositive motion practice are no longer in the sequence which the Court originally set and ord..
More
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; PROPOSED ORDER
Contra Costa Co. Sup. Court Case No: C16-01453
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
The parties to the above action, by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Due to several changes made to the scheduling of deadlines and other dates in this case, the sequence and timing of discovery, mediation and dispositive motion practice are no longer in the sequence which the Court originally set and ordered in this case. As a result, expert discovery, mediation and dispositive motions practice are due to be completed before fact discovery is to be completed.
2. Accordingly, the parties have met and conferred on the scheduling of deadlines and cutoffs in this case, and based on their discussions request that the Court issue a new scheduling order which restructures the dates to conform to the current trial date and the sequence of the original order (5/3/17 Scheduling Order — Doc. 60).
3. The parties respectfully request that the Court issue an order setting the following dates and deadlines {adjusted dates are in italics}:
Event Deadline
Mediation deadline March 31, 2018
Fact discovery cut-off February 15, 2018
Expert disclosures June 8, 2018
Expert rebuttal June 25, 2018
Expert discovery cut-off July 29, 2018
Deadline to file dispositive motions July 6, 2018
Pretrial conference statement due October 2, 2018
Pretrial conference October 12, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
Trial October 22, 2018 at 8:30 a.m.
Estimate of trial length (in days) Eight
SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
ORDER
The Court, having considered this mater and finding good cause to amend the scheduling order, hereby sets the following amended case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
Mediation deadline March 31, 2018
Fact discovery cut-off February 15, 2018
Expert disclosures June 8, 2018
Expert rebuttal June 25, 2018
Expert discovery cut-off July 29, 2018
Deadline to file dispositive motions June 6, 2018
Pretrial conference statement due October 2, 2018
Pretrial conference October 12, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
Trial October 22, 2018 at 8:30 a.m.
Estimate of trial length (in days) Eight
Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The parties shall comply with the Court's standing orders, which are available at cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders.
The parties must take all necessary steps to conduct discovery, compel discovery, hire counsel, retain experts, and manage their calendars so that they can complete discovery in a timely manner and appear at trial on the noticed and scheduled dates. All counsel must arrange their calendars to accommodate these dates, or arrange to substitute or associate in counsel who can.
Trial dates set by this Court should be regarded as firm. Requests for continuances are disfavored. The Court will not consider any event subsequently scheduled by a party, party-controlled witness, expert or attorney that conflicts with the above trial date as good cause to grant a continuance. The Court will not consider the pendency of settlement discussion as good cause to grant a continuance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
