ALLISON H. GODDARD, Magistrate Judge.
On the parties' Joint Motion, the Court previously vacated the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference ("ENE") and Case Management Conference ("CMC") in this matter in light of the United States' filing of a Third-Party Complaint against "K" Line RoRo Bulk Ship Management Co., Ltd. ("K Line"), Belocean Shipping, S.A. ("Belocean"), and vessel SHANGHAI HIGHWAY, in rem (collectively, "Third-Party Defendants"), and the need for the Third-Party Defendants to be able to participate in the ENE and CMC. ECF No. 16. The Court later reset the ENE and CMC for March 6, 2020. ECF No. 27.
On December 30, 2019, Third-Party Defendants filed their responsive pleadings, along with a separately filed crossclaim and counterclaim against the United States. See ECF Nos. 23, 24, 26. The Court then granted leave to Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint naming the Third-Party Defendants directly, which Plaintiff did on January 2, 2020. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Both Plaintiff and the United States contend that the vessel SHANGHAI HIGHWAY was traveling too fast in the San Diego Bay, resulting in excessive wake that caused the incident underlying this litigation—namely, the sudden and violent movement of the gangway on the U.S. Navy warship U.S.S. MAKIN ISLAND and Plaintiff's subsequent injuries. See ECF No. 34 at 2.
K Line and Belocean have now filed all relevant responsive pleadings, and they contend that the vessel SHANGHAI HIGHWAY was not responsible for producing an excessive wake and was not traveling at an unsafe speed. Further, K Line and Belocean assert that another vessel, MARJORIE C, passed the U.S.S. MAKIN ISLAND at the time of the alleged incident. Based on this new information, Plaintiff intends to seek leave to amend his complaint once more. Id. at 3. Therefore, the parties request another continuance of the ENE and CMC until June 5, 2020 because they "agree that no productive settlement discussions can occur without the participation of these new defendants and some initial discovery." Id.
Having reviewed the Joint Motion and being fully advised, the Court agrees that the ENE should be continued to allow the participation of all parties in early settlement discussions. Therefore, the March 6, 2020 ENE is hereby
The Court
However, the Court does not agree that it is necessary that any defendants that Plaintiff may be permitted to name in a future complaint be present at the CMC to participate in setting the discovery schedule and pretrial deadlines. Pretrial and discovery deadlines follow a broadly uniform schedule in all cases. Moreover, the setting of discovery deadlines in this case has already been delayed significantly by a three-month continuance of the CMC from December to March, and the Court is not amenable to delaying the issuance of a Scheduling Order by yet another three months. Moreover, the parties have already timely filed their Joint Discovery Plan on February 18, 2020 (ECF No. 33) and intend to comply with the Court-ordered deadline of February 28, 2020 to serve initial disclosures. See ECF No. 34 at 3. Therefore, the Court will keep the CMC on calendar for