Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00643/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00643-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

WORKLOGIC HR INSURANCE 

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00643-ADA-CDB

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Discovery Deadlines:

 - Amend Pleadings: January 13, 2024

 - Rule 26 Disclosures: October 25, 2023

 - Expert Disclosures: June 28, 2024

 - Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: July 19, 2024

 - Fact Discovery: June 21, 2024

 - Expert Discovery: August 23, 2024

 - Mid-Discovery Status Conference: May 8, 2024, 

at 9:00 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

 - Filing: August 9, 2024

 - Hearing: On or before September 13, 2024, at

 10:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

 - Filing: August 30, 2024

 - Hearing: On or before October 10, 2024, at

 1:30 p.m, in Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse,

 Fresno, Courtroom 1, 8th Floor

 

Pre-Trial Conference: March 17, 2025, at

 1:30 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse

Trial: May 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m, in Fresno

 Federal Courthouse

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 09/20/23 Page 1 of 7
2

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

Plaintiff American Zurich Insurance Company initiated this action with the filing of a complaint 

on April 27, 2023. Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claims against Defendants and seeks 

retrospective premiums and deductibles for workers compensation policies.

Date of Scheduling Conference

September 20, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker, via Zoom 

videoconference.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Lincoln Horton appeared on behalf of Plaintiff American Zurich Insurance Company.

Lawrence Heller appeared on behalf of Defendant Jeffrey D. Thorn.

Christopher Cianci appeared on behalf of Defendants Worklogic HR Insurance Services, 

Thorn Insurance Services LLC, Bradley C. Burks, Vensure Employer Services, Inc., and Vensure 

HR, Inc.

Defendants ESG Republic, Inc., and ESG Republic II, LLC, did not appear. 

III. Magistrate Judge Consent: 

The parties do not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 

Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 

District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 

set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset.

The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 

of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 

and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 

including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 

and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 

United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 

Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 

conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 09/20/23 Page 2 of 7
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

Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 

Magistrate Judge.

IV. Pleading Amendment 

Any motions to amend the pleadings must be filed by January 13, 2024. The parties are 

advised that filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect 

on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. 

All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the 

amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an 

amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in 

bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by 

October 25, 2023.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts by June 21, 2024, 

and all discovery pertaining to experts by August 23, 2024.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, by June 28, 2024, and to 

disclose all rebuttal experts by July 19, 2024. The written designation of retained and non-retained 

experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result 

in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not 

disclosed pursuant to this order.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 

and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 

1

In the event an expert will offer opinions related to an independent medical or mental health 

evaluation, the examination SHALL occur sufficiently in advance of the disclosure deadline so the 

expert’s report fully details the expert’s opinions in this regard.

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 09/20/23 Page 3 of 7
4

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

included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 

include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 

disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.

A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for May 8, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate 

Judge Christopher D. Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report no 

later than one week before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report via e-mail 

to CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery counsel have 

completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing the 

discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel SHALL discuss settlement and certify in 

the joint status report (1) that they have met/conferred regarding settlement, and (2) proposed dates for 

convening a settlement conference before a U.S. magistrate judge.

VI. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule / Informal Discovery Dispute Conferences

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed by August 

9, 2024

2

and heard on or before September 13, 2024. Discovery motions shall be set before Magistrate 

Judge Baker. For these hearings and at the direction of the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, the Court may 

direct counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom). For hearings noticed to occur in-person, the Court may 

permit counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom) provided the Courtroom Deputy Clerk receives a written 

notice of the request to appear remotely no later than five court days before the noticed hearing date.

No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained unless it is 

filed at least three days before the first deadline the parties wish to extend.

No written discovery motions shall be filed without the prior approval of Magistrate Judge

Baker. A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort 

to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the requesting 

party promptly shall seek a conference with all involved parties and Magistrate Judge Baker. To 

2 Non-dispositive motions related to non-expert discovery SHALL be filed within a reasonable 

time of discovery of the dispute, but in no event later than 30 days after the expiration of the nonexpert discovery deadline.

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 09/20/23 Page 4 of 7
5

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

schedule this conference, the parties should contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan Hall, at (661) 

326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. At least two days before the conference, counsel 

SHALL file a joint, informal letter brief detailing each party’s position. Each party’s narrative shall not 

exceed three pages, excluding exhibits. At the commencement of the conference, if the parties jointly 

agree to Magistrate Judge Baker’s consideration and resolution of the discovery disputes outside the 

formal Local Rule 251 procedures, the Court will entertain arguments by the parties and issue a ruling.

If the parties do not jointly agree to the informal discovery dispute resolution procedures set forth 

herein, the requesting party may then seek relief through motion to compel. Counsel must comply with 

Local Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice and

removed from the Court’s calendar.

All dispositive pre-trial motions shall be filed by August 30, 2024, and heard on or before

October 10, 2024, in Courtroom 1 at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Ana de Alba, United States 

District Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local 

Rules 230 and 260.

VII. Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

At least 21 days before filing a motion for summary judgment or motion for summary 

adjudication, the parties are ORDERED to meet, in person or by telephone, to confer about the issues to 

be raised in the motion.

The purpose of the meeting shall be to: 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a 

question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole 

or in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the 

issues for review by the court; 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the 

expense of briefing a motion; and 6) to develop a joint statement of undisputed facts.

The moving party SHALL initiate the meeting and SHALL provide a complete, proposed 

statement of undisputed facts at least five days before the conference. The finalized joint statement of 

undisputed facts SHALL include all facts that the parties agree, for purposes of the motion, may be 

deemed true. In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file the joint 

statement of undisputed facts. 

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 09/20/23 Page 5 of 7
6

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

In the notice of motion, the moving party SHALL certify that the parties have met and 

conferred as ordered above or set forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer. 

Failure to comply may result in the motion being stricken.

VIII. Pre-Trial Conference Date

March 17, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 1 before the Honorable Ana de Alba, United States 

District Judge.

The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pretrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). The 

parties are further directed to submit a digital copy of their pretrial statement in Word format, directly 

to Judge de Alba’s chambers, by email at ADAorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

Counsels’ attention is directed to Rules 281 and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the 

Eastern District of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the pre-trial conference. 

The Court will insist upon strict compliance with those rules. In addition to the matters set forth in the 

Local Rules the Joint Pretrial Statement shall include a Joint Statement of the case to be used by the 

Court to explain the nature of the case to the jury during voir dire.

IX. Trial Date

May 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1 before the Honorable Ana de Alba, United States 

District Judge.

A. This is a jury trial.

B. Counsels’ Estimate of Trial Time: 4-6 days

C. Counsels’ attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California, Rule 285.

X. Settlement Conference

The parties are advised that Judge de Alba requires that a mandatory settlement conference be 

conducted prior to trial. Where the parties filed a summary judgment/adjudication motion, a settlement 

conference shall be scheduled 30 days after the motion is fully briefed. In cases where the parties do 

not file a summary judgment/adjudication motions, a settlement conference shall be scheduled 30 days 

after the last day for the filing of dispositive motions. Unless otherwise requested by the parties, the 

Settlement Conference will be set before Magistrate Judge Baker.

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 09/20/23 Page 6 of 7
7

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

XI. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master, or other 

Techniques to Shorten Trial

Not applicable at this time.

XII. Related Matters Pending

There are no pending related matters.

XIII. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any 

amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to efficiently 

handle its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow both the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California.

XIV. Effect of this Order

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most 

suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for this case. If the 

parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered 

to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by 

subsequent status conference.

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a showing 

of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines 

contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and 

where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00643-KES-CDB Document 21 Filed 09/20/23 Page 7 of 7