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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?