Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC
Filing
56
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/3/2011 ORDERING that the 37 Amended Scheduling Order is AMENDED as follows: The deadline for the parties to disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedu re 26(a)(2) shall be extended from July 29, 2011, to August 12, 2011. The deadline for the parties to disclose rebuttal experts and produce rebuttal expert reports shall be extended from August 26, 2011, to September 9, 2011. 3. The deadline to comp lete all discovery shall be extended from September 30, 2011, to October 31, 2011, with all motions to compel to be heard no later than October 31, 2011. All other deadlines are to remain unchanged. Plaintiff's request for leave to take more t han ten depositions is DENIED without prejudice at this time. By close of business on Monday, August 8, 2011, defendant is ordered to complete its document production in its entirety. By close of business on Friday, August 12, 2011, plaintiff is ord ered to complete its document production in its entirety. The hearing currently set for August 25, 2011, regarding Defendant's 55 Motion For Protective Order shall remain on calendar. Counsel may appear telephonically at the hearing, but must make arrangements for telephonic appearance by contacting the undersigned's courtroom deputy. Counsel may also stipulate that the hearing be taken off calendar and may instead request another informal telephonic conference.(Duong, D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a Virginia
limited partnership,
12
Plaintiff,
No. 2:10-cv-0389-WBS-KJN
13
vs.
14
15
MANTECA LIFESTYLE CENTER, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
16
Defendant.
ORDER
17
18
At the joint request of plaintiff and counter-defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. (the
19
“plaintiff” or “Best Buy”) and defendant and counter-claimant Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC
20
(the “defendant” or “Manteca”), on August 3, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., the undersigned presided over
21
an informal telephonic discovery conference.1 Attorneys Amy Churan and Michael Geibelson
22
attended telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorney Howard Jeruchimowitz attended
23
telephonically on behalf of the defendant.
24
25
For the reasons discussed during the conference and based on the parties’
stipulations stated therein, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Status (Pretrial
26
1
This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
Scheduling) Order (Dkt. No. 24) as previously amended on March 3, 2011 (Dkt. No. 37) be
2
further amended2 as follows:
3
1.
The deadline for the parties to disclose experts and produce reports in
4
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) shall be extended from July 29, 2011,
5
to August 12, 2011.
6
7
2.
rebuttal expert reports shall be extended from August 26, 2011, to September 9, 2011.
8
9
10
The deadline for the parties to disclose rebuttal experts and produce
3.
The deadline to complete all discovery shall be extended from September
30, 2011, to October 31, 2011, with all motions to compel to be heard no later than October 31,
2011.
11
4.
12
Further, for the reasons discussed during the conference and based upon the
13
representations of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:
14
15
All other deadlines are to remain unchanged.
5.
Plaintiff’s request for leave to take more than ten depositions pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i) is denied without prejudice at this time.
16
(a)
Plaintiff may request such leave in the future; however, for each
17
additional deposition requested plaintiff must provide a detailed
18
explanation as to why that particular deposition is necessary and
19
why its necessity was not previously anticipated. The detailed
20
explanation(s) should include supporting citations to specific
21
discovery documents and/or witness testimony. Any such request
22
should also explain why the additional deposition(s) would be
23
consistent with the principles governing limitations on discovery.
24
25
26
2
The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order gives the magistrate judge the authority to hear
and decide requests to modify the dates or terms therein, except for requests to change the trial
date. (Dkt. No. 24 at 5.)
2
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). The parties remain free to stipulate to the
2
taking of additional depositions and, where reasonable, are
3
encouraged to do so.
4
6.
By close of business on Monday, August 8, 2011, defendant is ordered to
5
complete its document production in its entirety, including but not limited to the production of
6
two unredacted leases as discussed during the teleconference.
7
7.
By close of business on Friday, August 12, 2011, plaintiff is ordered to
8
complete its document production in its entirety, including but not limited to the production of
9
plaintiff’s redacted financial reports as discussed during the teleconference.
10
8.
The hearing currently set for August 25, 2011, regarding Defendant’s
11
Motion For Protective Order, Or, In The Alternative, To Quash The Subpoenas (Dkt. No. 55),
12
shall remain on calendar. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute through their continued
13
meet and confer efforts, the parties shall file a Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement at
14
least seven days before the hearing date in accordance with Local Rule 251. Counsel may appear
15
telephonically at the hearing, but must make arrangements for telephonic appearance by
16
contacting the undersigned’s courtroom deputy at (916) 930-4187. Counsel may also stipulate
17
that the hearing be taken off calendar and may instead request another informal telephonic
18
conference.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 3, 2011
21
22
23
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
3
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?