Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Acosta v. TForce Final Mile West LLC, 3:17-cv-06624 LB. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190716a05 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 15, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Plaintiff R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ("Plaintiff") and Defendants TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST LLC ("TForce") and ON COURIER 365, INC. ("OC 365") (collectively, "the Parties"), submit this stipulated request for the Court to modify the schedule for good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). Good cause to modify the case schedule exists, for the following reasons: 1. On November 16, 2017, P
More

STIPULATION TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE

Plaintiff R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ("Plaintiff") and Defendants TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST LLC ("TForce") and ON COURIER 365, INC. ("OC 365") (collectively, "the Parties"), submit this stipulated request for the Court to modify the schedule for good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). Good cause to modify the case schedule exists, for the following reasons:

1. On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint in this Court. ECF 1.

2. On March 22, 2018, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, following the initial Case Management Conference. ECF 40. The Order set trial for October 21, 2019. Id.

3. On January 31, 2019, the Parties submitted a stipulated request to modify the case schedule in order to accommodate Plaintiff's review of approximately 50,000 documents TForce had produced in discovery. ECF 30. That same day, the Court granted the stipulation, continued the trial to February 3, 2020, and modified the pre-trial and discovery deadlines accordingly. ECF 31.

4. On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff took a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of TForce regarding its recordkeeping practices. Based on the deposition, the Parties have been actively engaged in a cooperative effort to identify data elements and data samples that will facilitate the production of a large volume of ESI containing delivery and payment details for hundreds of drivers at issue in this case. Plaintiff believes this data is necessary for it to compute the damages it alleges are due as well as inform additional discovery. The Parties believe that the current discovery cutoff and expert disclosure deadline, August 16, 2019, leave insufficient time for them to complete this and other discovery in time for expert analysis. Thus, good cause exists to modify the schedule.

5. Currently, the Parties are set to appear on October 28, 2019, at a Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore. If the Parties are able to resolve their dispute at the Settlement Conference, they will avoid the substantial expense associated with expert reports and depositions. Thus, the Parties wish to set the expert disclosure deadline after the Settlement Conference.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court modify the schedule to reflect the following dates:

a. On or before November 25, 2019, the parties shall designate experts. b. On or before December 19, 2019, the parties shall designate their supplemental and rebuttal experts. c. On or before January 13, 2020, the parties shall complete all discovery of expert witnesses. d. On or before January 13, 2020, the Parties shall complete all non-expert discovery. e. All pretrial motions shall be heard no later than February 20, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available. f. The final pretrial conference shall be held on April 1, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available. g. Trial shall commence on a date set by the Court on or after April 27, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, 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