Bryant

Filing 35

ORDER granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to Depose Plaintiff and Move for Summary Judgment; The Case Management Conference Order filed 7/14/09 is amended as follows: No Memoranda of Law of Contentions of Fact are to be filed unle ss so ordered by this Court; Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law due by 10/19/2009. Counsel shall confer and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) on or before 10/30/09; Proposed Pretrial Order due by 11/3/2009. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/9/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12 before Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr... Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 6/9/09. (ksr)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 Having reviewed the Joint Motion Granting Defendant Additional Time 19 Within Which to Depose Plaintiff and Move for Summary Judgment, and good 20 cause appearing therefor, 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Amtrak may depose Plaintiff in this matter 22 on or before June 30, 2009, and may serve and file its contemplated motion for 23 summary judgment against Plaintiff on or before July 15, 2009. 24 The Case Management Conference Order, filed July 14, 2008 [doc. no. 7], is 25 amended as follows: No Memoranda of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed unless so 26 27 ordered by this Court. In that case, counsel shall serve on each other and file with 28 Order Granting Defendant Time To Depose Plaintiff And Move For Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 34] And 1 Amending Case Management Order [Doc. No. 7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES BRYANT, an individual, Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ADDITIONAL TIME WITHIN WHICH TO DEPOSE PLAINTIFF AND MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 34] AND AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER [DOC. NO. 7] Case No. 08 CV 0458 J (RBB) AMTRAK, a business form unknown; 14 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. 1 the Clerk of the Court their memoranda of contentions of fact and law in compliance 2 with Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) on or before October 19, 2009. In any event, on or 3 before this date, all parties or their counsel shall also fully comply with the pretrial 4 disclosure requirements of rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 Counsel shall confer and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) on 6 or before October 30, 2009. The parties shall meet and confer and prepare a 7 proposed pretrial order. A personal meeting between an incarcerated Plaintiff, 8 acting in pro per, and defense counsel is not required. 9 At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations 10 and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 11 exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for 12 impeachment, lists of witnesses and their addresses including experts who will be 13 called to testify and written contentions of applicable facts and law. The exhibits 14 shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(2)(c). Counsel shall 15 cooperate in the preparation of the proposed final pretrial conference order. 16 The proposed final pretrial conference order, including objections to any 17 party's Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures, shall be prepared, served and 18 lodged with the Clerk of the Court on or before November 3, 2009, and shall be in 19 the form prescribed in and in compliance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). Counsel shall 20 also bring a court copy of the pretrial order to the pretrial conference. 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order Granting Defendant Time To Depose Plaintiff And Move For Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 34] And 2 Amending Case Management Order [Doc. No. 7] The final pretrial conference shall be held before the Honorable Napoleon A. 22 Jones, Jr., United States District Judge, on November 9, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. DATED: June 9, 2009 _____________________________ Ruben B. Brooks, Magistrate Judge U.S. District Court

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?