Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02461/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02461-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 06CV2461 L (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY DAUBNER

Plaintiff,

v.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., aka SMITH &

NEPHEW RICHARDS, INC.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv2461 L (NLS)

ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION TO

AMEND FIRST AMENDED

SCHEDULING ORDER;

[Doc. No. 17]

SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING

ORDER

Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Amend the First Amended Scheduling Order [Doc.

No. 17], in which the parties request for a third time the extension of remaining discovery

deadlines and the pre-trial motions filing deadline in this case. The Court denied the parties’ first

request of May 8, 2007 [Doc. No. 13] because they failed to state any good cause in their joint

motion to support the requested continuance. In its order denying the motion, the Court warned

the parties that any future requests for extensions of scheduling order deadlines would have to be

supported by good cause and a report of the specific discovery conducted. (See May 10, 2007

Order Denying Joint Motion, Doc. No. 14.) On May 14, 2007, the parties filed an Amended Joint

Motion [Doc. No. 15], once again seeking the scheduling order deadline extensions, in which they

set forth some good cause for the request, but failed to report on discovery. The Court granted a

continuance of only thirty days instead of the requested ten weeks, and ordered that any future

Case 3:06-cv-02461-L-NLS Document 20 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 06CV2461 L (NLS)

requests to continue dates would require the personal appearance of the parties’ counsel in Court, a

sufficient showing of good cause and a detailed list of the discovery undertaken. (See May 16,

2007 Order Granting Amended Motion in Part, Doc. No. 16.) 

On May 25, 2007, the parties filed the Joint Motion currently before the Court. A

hearing on the motion was held on June 12, 2007. Based on the oral representations made by

counsel for the parties during the hearing, and good cause appearing, the Joint Motion [Doc. No.

17] is GRANTED in substantial part, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff shall provide the component part at issue to Defendants on or before 

June 22, 2007. 

2. Plaintiff shall designate her respective experts in writing on or before 

June 22, 2007. Plaintiff must identify any person who may be used at trial to

present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This

requirement is not limited to retained experts.

3. Defendants shall complete their examination of the component part at issue on or

before July 22, 2007. 

4. Defendants shall designate their respective experts in writing on or before August

1, 2007. Defendants must identify any person who may be used at trial to present

evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement

is not limited to retained experts.

5. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be on or before August 20, 2007. 

The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of

the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to

provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for

deposition and trial testimony.

6. On or before September 28, 2007, each party shall comply with the disclosure

provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to

provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly

Case 3:06-cv-02461-L-NLS Document 20 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 06CV2461 L (NLS)

involve the giving of expert testimony. 

7. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal

evidence under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)on or before October 19, 2007.

8. All discovery, including experts, shall be completed by all parties on or before

December 26, 2007. "Completed" means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must

be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may

be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice

and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall

promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in

compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). All discovery motions shall be filed within 30

days after counsel have met and conferred and reached an impasse with regard to

any particular discovery issue, but in no event shall discovery motions be filed

more than 30 days after the close of discovery.

9. All other pretrial motions must be filed on or before January 25, 2008. Please be

advised that counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from

the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. Be further advised that the

period of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may

vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a

timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard.

10. All non-conflicting provisions in the Court’s February 16, 2007 Scheduling Order

shall remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02461-L-NLS Document 20 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 3