[GSA] Munoz et al v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation

Filing 149

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication and Further Status Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/15/2014. Opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication due by 1/23/2015. Further Status Conference set for 1/30/2015 at 09:00 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
GIUMMARA VINEYARDS CORPORATION, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
RAPHAEL MUNOZ, et al.,

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00703-AWI-JLT
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND
FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE

On October 15, 2014, the Court held a further status conference. After conferring with

18

counsel, the Court sets the following briefing schedule re: Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

19

adjudication:

20
21
22

1.

Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication SHALL be filed no later

than January 23, 2015;
2.

A further status conference is set on January 30, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Telephonic

23

appearances via CourtCall are authorized. At that time, counsel shall be prepared to discuss the

24

amount of time needed for Plaintiffs to file their reply brief and whether discovery will be needed for

25
26
27
28
1

1

that purpose. In addition, though the Court expects that all merits discovery will be completed by

2

February 16, 2015, counsel shall be prepared also to discuss any merits discovery still outstanding1;
3.

3
4

All counsel are expected to take whatever steps are necessary to move the case forward

as expeditiously as possible.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

October 15, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To justify additional discovery after this deadline—such as, as Plaintiffs’ counsel expressed at the hearing, in the event
Plaintiffs do not succeed on their MSA—counsel will be expected to demonstrate why the discovery could not have been
completed before that date or that the topic upon which discovery is needed was not reasonably known and cold not have
been reasonably anticipated by counsel.

2