Sierra Bay Contractors, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company

Filing 108

CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER. ORDER REFERRING CASE to Private ADR.Pretrial Conference set for 1/31/2013 10:00 AM; Jury Selection set for 2/11/2013 09:00 AM; Jury Trial set for 2/11/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/18/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011)

Download PDF
*E-Filed 11/18/11* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 8 12 SIERRA BAY CONTRACTORS, INC., 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. No. C 10-04611 RS CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive 17 18 Defendants. ____________________________________/ 19 WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE CO., 20 Third-Party Plaintiff, 21 v. 22 ASPEN SPECIALITY INSURANCE 23 CO., et al, 24 25 26 27 Third-Party Defendants. ____________________________________/ Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties attended a Case Management Conference on November 17, 2011. After considering the Joint Case Management 28 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Statement submitted by the parties and consulting with the attorneys of record for the parties and 2 good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 3 1. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 4 MEDIATION. The parties have agreed to participate in mediation with Bruce Edwards on 5 December 2, 2011. The parties shall promptly notify the Court whether the case is resolved at the 6 mediation. 7 2. DISCOVERY. 8 On or before October 12, 2012, all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the parties. 9 Discovery shall be limited as follows: (a) ten (10) non-expert depositions per party; (b) twenty-five (25) interrogatories per party, including all discrete subparts; (c) a reasonable number of requests 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 for production of documents or for inspection per party; and (d) a reasonable number of requests for 12 admission per party. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. EXPERT WITNESSES. The disclosure and discovery of expert witness opinions shall proceed as follows: A. On or before October 19, 2012, plaintiff shall disclose expert testimony and reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). B. On or before November 16, 2012, defendant shall disclose expert testimony and reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). C. On or before November 30, 2012, all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be completed. 4. PRETRIAL MOTIONS. All pretrial motions must be filed and served pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. All pretrial motions shall be heard no later than December 6, 2012. 5. PRETRIAL STATEMENTS. At a time convenient to both, counsel shall meet and 24 confer to discuss preparation of a joint pretrial statement, and on or before January 17, 2013, 25 counsel shall file a Joint Pretrial Statement. 26 27 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER 28 2 1 6. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. The final pretrial conference will be held on January 31, 2 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate 3 Avenue, San Francisco, California. Each party or lead counsel who will try the case shall attend 4 personally. 5 7. TRIAL DATE. Trial shall commence on February 11, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., in 6 Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 7 California. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 DATED: 11/18/11 _______________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER 28 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?