Jump San Diego, LLC v. Kruger et al

Filing 32

ORDER: (1) Denying Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Conference [ECF No. 31 ] (2) Finding Early Neutral Evaluation Conference Inappropriate and (3) Resetting Telephonic Case Management Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 4/7/2017. (jjg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUMP SAN DIEGO, Case No.: 14cv1533-CAB (BLM) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. 13 14 JANAY KRUGER, et al., (1) DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE [ECF No. 31] Defendants. 15 (2) FINDING EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE INAPPROPRIATE 16 17 AND 18 (3) RESETTING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 19 20 21 On April 6, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion asking the Court to continue the Early 22 Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) set for May 8, 2017 and related deadlines. ECF No. 31. 23 In support, the parties state that both attorneys representing Defendant Kruger will participate 1 14cv1533-CAB (BLM) 1 in a civil trial in Orange County, which is scheduled to commence on May 1, 2017, and is 2 expected to last two weeks. Id. at 2; see also id. at 4, Declaration of Oliver B. Dreger (“Dreger 3 Decl.”). The parties state that the attorneys would not be able to participate in the ENE, and 4 ask the Court to continue the ENE and all related deadlines for three weeks. Id. at 2. 5 Due to defense counsel’s scheduling conflict, the Court finds it inappropriate to convene 6 an ENE at this time. See CivLR 16.1(c)(1) (explaining that “[t]he judicial officer will hold such 7 conferences as he or she deems appropriate”). Instead, the Court issues the following orders: 8 The Court will hold a telephonic, attorneys-only Case Management Conference on 9 April 28, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. In preparation for this conference, the parties must 10 11 a. Meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than April 17, b. File a Joint Discovery Plan on the CM/ECF system no later than April 21, 2017. 12 13 2017. Agreements made in the Joint Discovery Plan will be treated as binding stipulations that 14 are effectively incorporated into the Court’s Case Management Order. The Joint Discovery Plan 15 must be one document and must address each item identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). In 16 addition, the discovery plan must include: 17 18 i. Service: A statement as to whether any parties remain to be served and, if so, a proposed deadline for service; 19 ii. Amendment of Pleadings: The extent to which parties, claims, or 20 defenses are expected to be added or dismissed and a proposed deadline for amending the 21 pleadings; 22 23 iii. Protective Order: Whether a protective order is contemplated to cover the exchange of confidential information and, if so, the date by which the proposed order 2 14cv1533-CAB (BLM) 1 2 3 4 will be submitted to the Court; iv. Privilege: The procedure the parties plan to use regarding claims of privilege and whether an order pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502 will be sought; v. Evidence Preservation: Whether the parties have discussed issues 5 related to the preservation of relevant evidence and if there are areas of disagreement, how the 6 parties are resolving them; 7 vi. Electronic Discovery: In addition to the requirements set forth in 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(C), the parties must describe their agreements regarding methodologies 9 for locating and producing electronically stored information and the production of metadata, and 10 must identify any issues or agreements regarding electronically stored information that may not 11 be reasonably accessible (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B)); 12 vii. Discovery: In addition to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 26(f)(3)(B), the parties must describe the discovery taken to date (if any), any proposed 14 limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, and any identified discovery disputes; 15 16 17 viii. Related Cases: Any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of this court, or before another court or administrative body; ix. Scheduling: Proposed dates for fact discovery cutoff, expert 18 designations and disclosures, expert discovery cutoff, filing of dispositive motions, filing class 19 certification motion (if class is alleged), pretrial conference and trial; 20 21 22 23 x. Professional Conduct: Whether all attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed Civil Local Rule 83.4 on Professionalism; and xi. Miscellaneous: Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of this matter. 3 14cv1533-CAB (BLM) 1 2 3 4 c. The parties’ deadline to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) remains unchanged and is set for May 1, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 4/7/2017 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 14cv1533-CAB (BLM)

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?