Meisel et al v. Kaufman et al

Filing 95

REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Beeler on 6/24/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
ANDREW H. MEISEL, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,

No. C 10-01786 LB
REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
13
MARK KAUFMAN, et al.,
14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16

This matter is currently set for trial on July 25, 2011. ECF No. 55 at 2.1 The parties ceased

17

discovery at the end of March while they engaged in substantive settlement negotiations. Joint

18

CMC Statement, ECF No. 92 at 4, 6. With significant uncertainties now surrounding an on-record

19

settlement, the parties ask the court to continue the trial for a maximum of four months. See id. at 4.

20

Following a case management conference on June 23, 2011, the court revises its scheduling

21

order as follows:

22

Case Event

Date

23

Non-expert discovery completion date

9/30/2011

24

Expert disclosures required by Federal Rules of Civil

9/30/2011

25

Procedure

26

Rebuttal expert disclosures

10/10/2011

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 10-01786 LB
REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

1

Expert discovery completion date

10/30/2011

2

Last hearing date for dispositive motions

8/4/2011, at 11:00 a.m.

3

Meet and confer re pretrial filings

10/4/2011

4

Pretrial filings due

10/13/2011

5

Oppositions, Objections, Exhibits, and Depo Designations due

10/20/2011

6

Final Pretrial Conference

11/3/2011, at 10:30 a.m.

Trial

11/14/2011, at 8:30 a.m

7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

If, after meeting and conferring, the parties would like to modify these dates, the court ORDERS
the parties to file a joint stipulation before July 28, 2011. The court reminds the parties that the
October 20, 2011 deadline and those thereafter may not be modified by stipulation.
Mindful of the limited time between now and trial, the court also modifies its standing order to
limit any joint discovery letter to four pages with the parties’ positions laid out side-by-side.

13

At the June 23 case management conference, with regard to Plaintiffs’ pending motion to enforce

14

the settlement, Defendants asked whether the court’s objectivity would be compromised if the matter

15

proceeded to trial. The court confirmed that its objectivity would not be impaired.

16

Defendants also asked the court to extend their time to file their opposition brief to June 27, 2011

17

because a staff member of Defendants’ counsel was ill. The court GRANTS Defendants’ request

18

and extends their time to file their opposition brief until 5:00 p.m. on June 27, 2011. After the case

19

management conference, Plaintiffs filed a letter requesting the court extend its time to file a response

20

to July 14, 2011. ECF No. 93 at 2. Plaintiffs explained that the attorney working on the motion

21

would be out of the office from July 2 to July 10, 2011. Id. at 1. Because the court has granted

22

Defendants’ late request and the extension keeps to the standard 35-day briefing schedule, the court

23

further ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ time to file their optional reply brief is extended to July 14, 2011.

24
25
26
27

Defendants also stated their intention to file a cross-motion for summary judgment. The court
ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the hearings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

28

C 10-01786 LB
REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

2