Contreras v. UAL Corporation et al

Filing 50

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE EXPERT DEADLINES re 49 Letter, 21 Case Management Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Alsup on July 28, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JULIO E. CONTRERAS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 10-05127 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
UAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, CHARLES
WILLIAMS, an individual, and DOES 1–10,

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION RE EXPERT
DEADLINES

15
Defendants.
16

/

17
The August 2013 case management order stated that the last date for designation of
18
expert testimony and disclosure of full opening expert reports on any issue upon which a party
19
has the burden of proof was June 27, 2014. The expert discovery cutoff was August 1.
20
Dispositive motions are due August 7 and trial begins October 20, 2014 (Dkt. No. 21).
21
On July 22 at 9:22 p.m., the parties filed a one-sentence stipulation and proposed order
22
stating that the parties agreed to “extend the expert disclosure deadline from July 22, 2014 to
23
August 12, 2014.” The motion was denied.
24
The parties then filed a “joint request for clarification / consideration of proposed
25
deadlines re: expert rebuttal and reply reports.” They stated that on June 25, they unilaterally
26
“agreed” to extend the date for opening expert reports to July 22 but “inadvertently failed to file
27
[the] stipulation with [the] Court.” They further stated that “all opening expert reports” were
28
exchanged on July 23. They now propose exchanging opposition reports on August 6, reply
reports on August 13, and expert discovery closing on August 27.

1

The parties state that they “understand” that dispositive motions must be filed by August 7,

2

trial begins October 20, 2014, and “all related deadlines” remain the same.

3

This order acknowledges that counsel have privately stipulated to postpone and delay

4

the expert schedule and hopefully this will not be an issue on summary judgment and/or trial.

5

The difficulty is that the schedule in the case management order allowed for adequate time to

6

bring motions to object to passages in the expert reports without putting pressure on the

7

summary judgment and/or trial dates. Now counsel have unilaterally eliminated that flexibility

8

from the schedule. It is impossible at this stage to know what objections to experts will arise as

9

the case proceeds. If it turns out that objections are made to expert testimony that could have
been seasonably litigated under the original schedule (but not on the privately agreed-upon

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

schedule), then the Court may deny relief based upon the failure to adhere to the original

12

schedule. All other deadlines remain in place.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: July 28, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2