Eli Lilly and Company v. Gitmed et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING Defendant's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order; Setting an Initial Scheduling Conference set for 10/17/2017 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone; and Requiring Defendant Gitmed to File an Answer to the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/18/2017. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,

14
15

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING
ORDER; SETTING MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FOR
OCTOBER 17, 2017; AND REQUIRING
DEFENDANT GITMED TO FILE AN
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:16 -cv-00178-DAD-SAB

v.
JOHN DEREK GITMED, et al.,
Defendants.

FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company filed a motion to amend the scheduling

19 order in this action. The Court notes on May 4, 2017, the District Judge issued an order denying
20 Defendant Gitmed’s motion to dismiss and his answer to the complaint was due within fourteen
21 days of the May 4, 2017. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Defendant Gitmed has not filed a
22 responsive pleading, however, Plaintiff’s motion indicates that the parties are pursuing
23 settlement discussion in this matter.
24

As Defendant Gitmed has yet to file an answer to the complaint, the Court finds that the

25 current scheduling order should be vacated.

The Court will set a date for a mandatory

26 scheduling conference in the event that the parties are unable to settle this matter. The Court
27 shall therefore deny Plaintiff’s motion and require Defendant Gitmed to respond to the
28 complaint. The Court will extend the time for Defendant Gitmed to file an answer to allow the

1

1 parties to further attempt to settle this action.
2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Defendant Gitmed shall file an answer to the complaint or other responsive
pleading within forty-five (45) days of the date of service of this order;

4
5

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order is DENIED;

6

3.

The scheduling order issued March 22, 2017 is VACATED;

7

4.

A mandatory scheduling conference is set for October 17, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. in
Courtroom 9;

8
5.

9

The parties are required to file a joint scheduling report one week prior to the
scheduled conference date; and

10
6.

11

Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact the litigation coordinator at the prison in

12

which Defendant Gitmed is confined to facilitate Defendant’s telephonic

13

appearance at the scheduling conference.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated:

July 18, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2