Peterson v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC

Filing 23

SCHEDULING ORDER. The parties are ordered to have exchanged the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before August 18, 2017. Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later th an December 13, 2017. Class certification discovery shall be completed by no later than March 2, 2018. Expert witnesses opining on issues of class certification shall be disclosed by January 19, 2018. Rebuttal expert witnesses shall be disclosed by February 16, 2018. The motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than April 6, 2018. Any opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than May 4, 2018. Any reply brief in support of the motion fo r class certification shall be filed by no later than May 18, 2018. The motion for class certification shall be heard by no later than June 6, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J. ONeill, Chief United States District Judge. A mid-discovery status conference to set further scheduling dates, as needed, is set for August 7, 2018, at 10:15 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/23/2017. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ERIKA PETERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), 13 SCHEDULING ORDER v. 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-00499-LJO-SKO ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, 16 Defendant. 17 18 On August 23, 2017, a scheduling conference was held. Adrian Bacon, Esq., appeared 19 telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Michael Schulman, Esq., appeared telephonically on behalf 20 of Defendant. 21 The Court set the following deadlines: 22 1. The parties are ordered to have exchanged the initial disclosures required by Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before August 18, 2017. 24 2. 25 Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than December 13, 2017.1 26 27 28 1 The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings by December 13, 2017, does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be 1 3. Class certification discovery shall be completed by no later than March 2, 2018. 2 4. Expert witnesses opining on issues of class certification shall be disclosed by 3 January 19, 2018. 4 5. Rebuttal expert witnesses shall be disclosed by February 16, 2018. 5 6. The motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than April 6, 2018. 6 7. Any opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than 7 May 4, 2018. 8 8. Any reply brief in support of the motion for class certification shall be filed by no 9 later than May 18, 2018. 10 9. The motion for class certification shall be heard by no later than June 6, 2018, at 11 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief United 12 States District Judge. 13 10. A mid-discovery status conference to set further scheduling dates, as needed, is set 14 for August 7, 2018, at 10:15 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before U.S. Magistrate Judge 15 Sheila K. Oberto. Telephonic appearances are approved, and all parties intending 16 to appear telephonically shall coordinate one conference call to the Court at (559) 17 499-5790 at the appointment time. By no later than September 18, 2018, the 18 parties shall file and email to skoorders@caed.uscourts.gov in MS Word format a 19 status report providing (a) dates agreed upon by all counsel for all remaining 20 deadlines, and (b) an updated status of the case. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 23, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 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?