United States of America v. 29.81 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Kern County, California et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING 34 Motion re Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Expert Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/19/2018. Expert disclosure due by 7/25/2018; rebuttal due by 8/15/2018; expert discovery completed by 10/2/2018. No other modifications to the case schedule are authorized. (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
16
17

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO.: 1:17-cv-00932-DAD-JLT

Plaintiff,

[ PROPOSED ] ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF
EXPERT WITNESSES AND EXPERT
DISCOVERY
(Doc. 34)

vs.
29.81 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR
LESS, SITUATE IN KERN COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

The defendant, Malek & Shipper, seeks an extension of time to disclose its expert. (Doc.

20 34) The defendant indicates that its expert has been unable to complete the report due to other
21 assignments and his/her schedule. Id. at 3. Notably, however, the defendant fails to explain when
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

1 it retained the expert such to avoid this type of scheduling difficulty1. In any event, the defendant
2 seeks a one-month extension of time for the disclosure. Id. at 34. Without explanation, the
3 defendant also seeks an extension of all remaining case deadlines. It appears that the defendant
4 believes, despite the scheduling conference, that the Court selected the dates without regard for the
5 trial date; this is incorrect.2 Thus, the Court ORDERS:
6

1.

The case schedule is amended as follows:

7

a.

The parties SHALL disclose their experts no later than July 25, 2018;

8

b.

Any rebuttal experts SHALL be disclosed no later than August 15, 2018;

9

c.

All expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than October 2, 2018.

10 Absolutely no other modifications to the case schedule are authorized.
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

13

June 19, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

1

The motion takes pains to detail that the plaintiff does not oppose the motion and that there would be no prejudice to

23 the plaintiff if the motion is granted. However, the standard here, first and foremost, is a demonstration that the party

cannot meet the deadline despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609

24 (9th Cir. 1992) [“Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the
25
26
27
28

amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of
the party seeking the extension. Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no
reason for a grant of relief. Although the existence of a degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification
might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for
modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”] There is little showing in this regard.
2

The pretrial conference must occur at least eight weeks before the trial; the hearing on the dispositional motion must
be heard at least 10 weeks before the pretrial conference and it must be filed 14 weeks before. Judge Drozd hears
motions only on the first and third Tuesday. Thus, the proposed schedule is not workable.

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE