California Capital Insurance Company v. A.O. Smith Corporation et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02377

SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/20/2016.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE Case No. 15-cv-02377-HSG COMPANY, 8 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER 9 v. 10 A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Northern District of California At the initial case management conference for this case on August 11, 2015, the Court United States District Court 13 asked the parties whether there were any issues with the Court's proposed case deadlines. Dkt. 14 No. 18. Both parties agreed that the schedule was acceptable and the Court entered the current 15 scheduling order. See Dkt. No. 21. 16 On January 4, 2016, the parties filed a stipulated request to extend the case schedule by 17 several months, stating that they are unable to meet the deadlines previously agreed to. Dkt. No. 18 27. At the January 12, 2016 case management conference, the Court directed the parties to file a 19 joint statement identifying every person that needs to be deposed, including his or her role, and 20 any new discovery issues that the parties contend necessitate an extension of the current 21 scheduling order. See Dkt. No. 31. On January 15, 2016, the parties filed a joint statement further 22 explaining the scope of the remaining anticipated discovery and the reasons for being unable to 23 meet the previously agreed-upon case deadlines. Dkt. No. 32. 24 Although the Court is unpersuaded by the parties' reliance on commonplace scheduling 25 challenges as a justification for extending the case schedule by several months, the Court will 26 grant a short extension based on the parties' explanation in the joint statement. The Court expects 27 the parties to meet and confer proactively, promptly and collaboratively resolve scheduling and 28 1 discovery matters, and keep this case on track. The parties must continue to focus and streamline 2 the case appropriately: the Court notes, for example, that virtually all of the deposition topics 3 Plaintiff lists are likely capable of being covered by a small number of witnesses. The Court 4 remains skeptical that this case needs to be as complicated as the parties are representing it to be, 5 and will view any further request for a continuance with extreme disfavor. 6 The Court sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 7 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: 8 Event New schedule 9 Close of Fact Discovery March 18, 2016 Disclosure of Expert Witnesses March 25, 2016 10 Disclose of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses April 15, 2016 11 Mediation Deadline April 20, 2016 12 Northern District of California United States District Court Close of Expert Discovery May 2, 2016 13 Dispositive Motion Hearing Date June 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. 14 Pretrial Conference September 6, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. 15 Jury Trial September 19, 2016 16 at 8:30 a.m. 17 The parties are directed to review and comply with this Court's Civil Pretrial and Trial 18 Standing Order. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 1/20/2016 21 22 23 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2