Edwards v. Pacific Cycle, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER Denying 12 Joint Motion, Finding Early Neutral Evaluation Conference Inappropriate, and Setting Telephonic Case Management Conference. Neutral Evaluation Conference scheduled for 7/25/2018 is vacated. The Court will hold a telephonic, attorneys-only Case Management Conference on 9/10/2018 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major. A Joint Discovery Plan is due no later than 8/31/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 7/10/2018. (lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 18cv1358-L(BLM)

ALAN EDWARDS,

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION,
FINDING EARLY NEUTRAL
EVALUATION CONFERENCE
INAPPROPRIATE, AND SETTING
TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

PACIFIC CYCLE, INC., SEARS HOLDINGS
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, SEARS,
ROEBUCK AND CO. AND DOES 1-20,

15
16

[ECF No. 12]

Defendants.

17
18

On July 9, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral Evaluation

19

Conference. ECF No. 12. The parties seek to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference

20

(“ENE”) currently scheduled for July 25, 2018 for sixty to ninety days. Id. at 2. In support, the

21

parties state that they have recently discovered a third party, Apollo Retail Specialists, LLC, that

22

was the bike assembler responsible for assembling Plaintiff’s bicycle that is at issue in this case.

23

Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff needs additional time to amend his complaint to add Apollo Retail

24

Specialists, LLC, after which, Defendants will need additional time to file a Cross-Claim. Id. The

25

parties state that the additional time will allow Apollo Retail Specialists, LLC to be served, retain

26

counsel, and attend the ENE. Id.

27

Because Civil Local Rule 16.1(c) requires that an ENE take place within forty-five (45)

28
1

18cv1358-L(BLM)

1

days of the filing of an answer1, the Court DENIES the parties’ motion. However, given the

2

status of the case and content of the pleadings, the Court finds it inappropriate to convene an

3

ENE at this time and VACATES the ENE currently scheduled for July 25, 2018. See CivLR

4

16.1(c)(1) (explaining that “[t]he judicial officer will hold such conferences as he or she deems

5

appropriate”). Instead, the Court issues the following orders:

6

The Court will hold a telephonic, attorneys-only Case Management Conference (“CMC”)

7

on September 10, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. The Court will initiate the call. In preparation for this

8

conference, the parties must

9

a.

File a Joint Discovery Plan on the CM/ECF system no later than August 31,

10

2018. Agreements made in the Joint Discovery Plan will be treated as binding stipulations that

11

are effectively incorporated into the Court’s Case Management Order. The Joint Discovery Plan

12

must be one document and must address each item identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). In

13

addition, the discovery plan must include:
i.

14
15

Service: A statement as to whether any parties remain to be served

and, if so, a proposed deadline for service;
ii.

16

Amendment of Pleadings: The extent to which parties, claims, or

17

defenses are expected to be added or dismissed and a proposed deadline for amending the

18

pleadings;
iii.

19

Protective Order: Whether a protective order is contemplated to

20

cover the exchange of confidential information and, if so, the date by which the proposed order

21

will be submitted to the Court;

22
23

iv.

of privilege and whether an order pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502 will be sought;

24
25
26
27
28

Privilege: The procedure the parties plan to use regarding claims

v.

Evidence Preservation: Whether the parties have discussed issues

related to the preservation of relevant evidence and if there are areas of disagreement, how the

1

An answer was filed in this matter on June 20, 2018. ECF No. 4. Forty-five days from June
20, 2018 is August 4, 2018.
2

18cv1358-L(BLM)

1

parties are resolving them;
vi.

2

Electronic Discovery: In addition to the requirements set forth in

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(C), the parties must describe their agreements regarding methodologies

4

for locating and producing electronically stored information and the production of metadata, and

5

must identify any issues or agreements regarding electronically stored information that may not

6

be reasonably accessible (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B));

7

vii.

Discovery: In addition to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

8

26(f)(3)(B), the parties must describe the discovery taken to date (if any), any proposed

9

limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, and any identified discovery disputes;

10
11

viii.

Related Cases: Any related cases or proceedings pending before

another judge of this court, or before another court or administrative body;
ix.

12

Scheduling: Proposed dates for fact discovery cutoff, expert

13

designations and disclosures, expert discovery cutoff, filing of dispositive motions, filing class

14

certification motion (if class is alleged), pretrial conference and trial;
x.

15
16

parties have reviewed Civil Local Rule 83.4 on Professionalism; and
xi.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Professional Conduct: Whether all attorneys of record for the

Miscellaneous: Such other matters as may facilitate the just,

speedy and inexpensive disposition of this matter.
b.

Exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) no later than

September 4, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/10/2018

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

18cv1358-L(BLM)