Torres v. Saba et al

Filing 129

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/10/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARIO TORRES,
Plaintiff,

8

MIKE HANSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-06607-SI

12
13

Recently, the Court ordered the parties to file case management statements to determine the

14

trial-readiness of this case. Docket No. 122. Defendants filed a case management statement, but

15

plaintiff did not.1 See Docket No. 127. The case file and the case management statement that was

16

filed indicate that this case is almost ready for a jury trial that is expected to last 4-6 days. The Court

17

now sets the following schedule:

18

1.

Discovery cut-off: All non-expert discovery must be completed by June 30, 2020.

19

2.

Expert witness discovery: No later than July 1, 2020, the parties must disclose any

20

expert(s) they intend to use at trial. No later than July 14, 2020, the parties must disclose any

21

rebuttal expert(s) they intend to use at trial. No later than July 31, 2020, the parties must complete

22

all expert witness discovery.

23

3.

Pretrial conference: The parties must file their pretrial conference statements no later

24

than August 4, 2020. The pretrial conference will be held at 3:30 p.m. on August 18, 2020 in

25

Courtroom # 1 on the 17th Floor of the courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

26

California. The parties must comply with all the instructions on the attached “Pretrial Instructions

27
28

Plaintiff’s most recent request for an extension of the deadline to file a case management
statement is DENIED for the reasons stated in the order filed February 14, 2020. Docket No. 128.
1

1

– Honorable Susan Illston” form that also is available on the Court’s website.
4.

3

Due to the recurring problem of plaintiff missing deadlines and requesting extensions, the

4

Court provides these cautionary words. The deadlines set in this order are almost all related to other

5

deadlines in this order (e.g., the pretrial conference statements are needed in time to prepare for the

6

pretrial conference), such that changing any one of them might make it difficult for the other

7

deadlines to stay in place. The parties therefore must make every reasonable effort to comply with

8

the deadlines because it is extremely unlikely that any of the deadlines set in this order will be

9

extended. Failing to comply with any of these court-ordered deadlines may result in sanctions or

10

dismissal. See generally Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1980) (court has the inherent

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

power to impose monetary and nonmonetary sanctions against parties and attorneys for bad faith

12

conduct in the litigation or willful disobedience of a court order); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (action may

13

be involuntarily dismissed “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules

14

of Civil Procedure] or a court order”).

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Trial: The trial will commence at 8:30 a.m. on August 31, 2020.

Dated: March 10, 2020
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2