Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 76

FURTHER SCHEDULING ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/19/2016. Discovery Deadlines: Non-expert 10/3/2016; Expert 12/16/2016. Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filed by 12/30/2016; Hearing by 1/27/2017. Dispositive Motion D eadlines if allowed by Court: Filed by 12/30/2016; Hearing by 2/27/2017. Settlement Conference set for 11/7/2016 at 01:30 PM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Pretrial Conference set for 4/25/2017 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Jury Trial set for 6/20/2017 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (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

TREVOR WEEKS,

) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01641 - AWI-JLT
)
Plaintiff,
) FURTHER SCHEDULING ORDER
)
v.
)
)
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

16
In ruling on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court concluded that

17
18

“significant events occurred around March 2015, well after the close of discovery” and that the illness

19

of Plaintiff’s prior counsel, now deceased, interfered with the attorney’s ability to properly discover

20

this case. (Doc. 71 at 19) Moreover, the Court vacated the pretrial conference and trial dates in order

21

to allow sufficient time to decide the dispositive motions. (Doc. 38) Thus, the Court ordered the

22

parties to file a joint statement related to their proposed dates for the remainder of the case. (Doc. 72)

23

Based upon the joint statement1 (Doc. 74), the Court ORDERS the scheduling order (Doc. 11)

24

amended as follows:

25
26
27
28

1

The day before the further scheduling conference, counsel left a message for the Court indicating that Mr. Charles
Thompson, counsel for Defendant, made a calendaring error and agreed to be a speaker at an event, at which 85-100 guests
were expected to attend, for the time during which the further scheduling conference was set to occur. Mr. Thompson
obtained the agreement of opposing counsel to request the Court re-set the conference. The Court recognizes that everyone
makes mistakes but, rather than delay issuing the new case schedule, the Court vacated the conference (Doc. 75) and issue
the schedule without a hearing.

1

1

1. All non-expert discovery2 SHALL be completed by October 3, 2016;

2

2. All expert discovery SHALL be completed by December 16, 2016. The parties are

3

directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before October 21, 2016, and to

4

disclose all rebuttal experts on or before November 18, 2016;
3. Any non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, SHALL be filed

5

no later than December 30, 2016, and heard on or before January 27, 2017;

6

4. Any dispositive motions, if they are allowed by the Court3, SHALL be filed no later than

7

December 30, 2016, and heard on or before February 27, 2017;

8

5. The pretrial conference is set on April 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before Judge

9

Ishii;

10

6. The trial is set on June 20, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before the Honorable

11

Anthony W. Ishii, United States District Court Judge;

12

7. The settlement conference is set on November 7, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Thurston

13

at the United States Courthouse located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California.

14

All of the procedures set forth in the case schedule as well as the locations for motions,

15
16

hearings, trial, etc. detailed therein, remain in place and counsel remain obligated to comply

17

with the scheduling order except as modified here.

18

No other amendments to the case schedule are authorized and the Court does not

19

anticipate granting further requests to amend the case schedule. The Court strongly encourages

20

counsel to complete the additional discovery they need expeditiously.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

26
27
28

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25

May 19, 2016

2

The Court does not rule now on objections to a further deposition of Plaintiff. However, the Court does anticipate that an
argument that fairness dictates that Defendant should be permitted to take a further deposition, limited in duration and in
scope, of Plaintiff as to events occurring after the close of the previous discovery deadline, would likely be well-taken. On
the other hand, if Plaintiff stipulates that he will not testify at trial as to these issues, the Court would likely agree that a
further deposition would not be warranted.
3
Because Defendant has filed two motions for summary judgment already, any further such motion may not be filed unless
the Court first grants leave to do so.

2