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)

Download PDF
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

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?