City of Ripon v. Continental Ins. Co., et al.,

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/16/13. The parties' 30 Stipulation and Proposed Order filed by Travelers Indemnity Company is NOT APPROVED, but without prejudice to the parties submitting a revised stipulation addressing the court's scheduling concerns as outlined. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CITY OF RIPON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:12-cv-1638-WBS-KJN
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY & TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendants.

17
18

On October 14, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to amend the

19

district judge’s October 11, 2012 pre-trial scheduling order (ECF No. 15), as modified by the

20

district judge’s subsequent March 15, 2013 order (ECF No. 17). (ECF No. 30.) The pre-trial

21

scheduling order provides that “[a]ny requests to modify the dates or terms of this Scheduling

22

Order, except requests to change the date of the trial, may be heard and decided by the assigned

23

Magistrate Judge. All requests to change the trial date shall be heard and decided only by the

24

undersigned judge.” (ECF No. 15 at 5.)

25
26
27
28

The court declines to approve the parties’ present stipulation, but without prejudice to the
parties submitting a revised stipulation that addresses the issues outlined in this order.
Although the parties have stipulated that motions for summary judgment shall be filed by
February 15, 2014, the parties also stipulated that discovery shall be completed by July 1, 2014,
1

1

and that the deadline for filing all other motions, including discovery motions, shall be extended

2

to August 1, 2014. However, the parties have not stipulated to a change in the final pretrial

3

conference and trial dates, which are still set for August 4, 2014 and October 7, 2014,

4

respectively, before the district judge.

5

If the parties do not intend to request a change in the pretrial conference and trial dates,

6

the undersigned is disinclined to approve a stipulation that would allow motions, except motions

7

for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, to be filed after

8

the district judge’s current filing deadline of June 2, 2014. By contrast, the parties’ present

9

stipulation and proposed order would allow parties to file motions until August 1, 2014, mere

10
11

days before the pretrial conference.
Additionally, the parties are advised that it is the court’s practice to have all discovery

12

motions resolved by the discovery completion deadline. (See Pretrial Scheduling Order, ECF No.

13

15 at 3 (“All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in

14

accordance with the local rules of this court and so that such motions may be heard and any

15

resulting orders obeyed not later than [the discovery completion deadline].”))

16

Therefore, the parties should consider making adjustments to their proposed schedule to

17

accommodate the above concerns. Furthermore, if the parties decide to request a change to the

18

pretrial conference and trial dates, the parties should submit their stipulation and proposed order

19

for the district judge’s consideration, given that those dates are set before the district judge and

20

would impact his schedule.

21

Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation and proposed order to amend the pretrial scheduling

22

order (ECF No. 30) is NOT APPROVED, but without prejudice to the parties submitting a

23

revised stipulation addressing the court’s scheduling concerns outlined above.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2013

26
27
28
2