Driver v. Pape Kenworth et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 07/17/23 VACATING the 07/25/23 hearing on Motion to Reopen Expert Discovery; within 14 days, non-moving parties shall respond to defendant's motion by informing the court of their position(s) on the motion; and within 10 days of non-moving parties' response, defendant shall submit a reply brief. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROGER DRIVER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

2:17-cv-01968-KJN
ORDER

v.

14

PAPÉ TRUCKS, INC., ET AL.,

15

Defendant

16
17
Plaintiff, Roger Driver, filed this diversity action against defendant Pape Trucks, Inc. for

18
19

negligence. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant’s motion to reopen expert discovery, filed on June 15,

20

2023, is presently pending before this court and is set for a hearing on July 25, 2023. (ECF No.

21

87.)
Under Local Rule 230(c), any opposition to this motion was to be filed no later than June

22
23

29, 2023. L.R. 230(c). That date has passed, and no opposition was received. However, as the

24

court requires input from the parties on whether to reopen expert discovery, the court hereby

25

orders that all non-moving parties 1 inform the court of their position on defendant’s motion

26
27
28

1

Jomar Investments, Inc (third-party defendant) and Accident Fund Insurance Company of
America (plaintiff-in-intervention) are also parties to this case.
1

1

within fourteen days of this order.1 Defendant shall file a reply brief within ten days of the non-

2

moving parties’ filing.

3

In the forthcoming briefing, the parties shall address the following: 1) whether trial is

4

imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be

5

prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines

6

established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the

7

time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead

8

to relevant evidence. City of Pomona v. SQM N.A. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017)

9

(listing factors which the court must consider in deciding motion to amend a scheduling order to

10

reopen discovery). Apart from the question of diligence, defendant’s motion fails to address any

11

of these factors. (See ECF No. 87.)
ORDER

12
13

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

14

1. The July 25, 2023 hearing on defendant’s motion is vacated;

15

2. Within fourteen days of this order, non-moving parties shall respond to defendant’s
motion by informing the court of their position(s) on the motion; and

16

3. Within ten days of non-moving parties’ response, defendant shall submit a reply brief.

17
18

Dated: July 17, 2023

19
20
21

roge.1968

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2