California Capital Insurance Company v. A.O. Smith Corporation et al

Filing 34

SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/20/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-02377-HSG
SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
At the initial case management conference for this case on August 11, 2015, the Court
asked the parties whether there were any issues with the Court’s proposed case deadlines. Dkt.
No. 18. Both parties agreed that the schedule was acceptable and the Court entered the current
scheduling order. See Dkt. No. 21.
On January 4, 2016, the parties filed a stipulated request to extend the case schedule by
several months, stating that they are unable to meet the deadlines previously agreed to. Dkt. No.
27. At the January 12, 2016 case management conference, the Court directed the parties to file a
joint statement identifying every person that needs to be deposed, including his or her role, and
any new discovery issues that the parties contend necessitate an extension of the current
scheduling order. See Dkt. No. 31. On January 15, 2016, the parties filed a joint statement further
explaining the scope of the remaining anticipated discovery and the reasons for being unable to
meet the previously agreed-upon case deadlines. Dkt. No. 32.
Although the Court is unpersuaded by the parties’ reliance on commonplace scheduling
challenges as a justification for extending the case schedule by several months, the Court will
grant a short extension based on the parties’ explanation in the joint statement. The Court expects
the parties to meet and confer proactively, promptly and collaboratively resolve scheduling and

1

discovery matters, and keep this case on track. The parties must continue to focus and streamline

2

the case appropriately: the Court notes, for example, that virtually all of the deposition topics

3

Plaintiff lists are likely capable of being covered by a small number of witnesses. The Court

4

remains skeptical that this case needs to be as complicated as the parties are representing it to be,

5

and will view any further request for a continuance with extreme disfavor.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event
Close of Fact Discovery
Disclosure of Expert Witnesses
Disclose of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses

New schedule
March 18, 2016
March 25, 2016
April 15, 2016

Mediation Deadline

April 20, 2016

12
13
14

Close of Expert Discovery
Dispositive Motion Hearing Date

May 2, 2016
June 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Pretrial Conference

September 6, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.

15
Jury Trial

September 19, 2016
at 8:30 a.m.

16
17
18
19
20
21

The parties are directed to review and comply with this Court’s Civil Pretrial and Trial
Standing Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/20/2016

22
23

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2