Bakersfield Pipe & Supply, Inc., v. Cornerstone Valve, LLC

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING IN PART Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order and Preliminary Pretrial Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/28/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BAKERSFIELD PIPE & SUPPLY,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

CORNERSTONE VALVE, LLC, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01445 JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO
AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER
(Doc. 39)

16
17

On March 24, 2016, Defendants filed an ex parte application1 seeking an extension of time to

18

complete expert discovery. (Doc. 41-1) However, the scheduling order requires the moving party to

19

seek an informal conference with the Court before the party may file any motion related to discovery.

20

(Doc. 17 at 3-4) Thus, the Court initiated and held the informal conference on March 28, 2016.
At the conference, the Court learned that defense counsel had not spoken to his experts to

21
22

determine their availability during the three-week extension of time sought in the motion. Moreover,

23

if the Court grants an extension, Plaintiff’s attorney likewise would need to discuss availability with

24

their experts. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1.

25
26

No later than close of business today, counsel SHALL obtain dates that their experts

and they are available between April 5 and April 29, 2016. No later than noon on March 29, 2016,

27
28

1

Notably, Defendants fail to show why they believed that the motion could or should be heard ex parte. L.R. 230.

1

1

counsel SHALL exchange the dates that they and their experts are available. No later than noon on

2

March 30, 2016, counsel SHALL notify their opponent which of the proposed dates will work on

3

their calendars.2

4

2.

No later than close of business on March 31, 2016, counsel SHALL file a joint

5

statement indicating the dates they will take the expert depositions. If necessary, the Court will

6

schedule a further informal telephonic conference. Otherwise, the Court will issue an order related to

7

the proposed dates.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

March 28, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2

Neither side may insist that their opponent’s experts will be taken first. Fed. R. Div. P. 26(d)(3). Likewise, neither side is
permitted to reject a proposed date merely because a party wishes to be present for the depositions. If a party wishes to be
present, he/she/it SHALL make himself/herself/itself available on dates convenient to the deponents and counsel.

2