Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00952/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00952-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY USSERY, an individual and 

ALPHA ZETA LOGISTIX, a California 

Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability Corporation,

Defendant

No. 2:23-cv-0952 DAD DB

ORDER

This court conducted a scheduling conference on November 17, 2023. Attorney Sepehr 

Daghighian appeared by Zoom video on behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney Mehgan Gallagher

appeared by Zoom video on behalf of defendant. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, the court issues this scheduling order.

I. SERVICE OF PROCESS

The named defendant has been served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. 

No further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).

////

////

Case 2:23-cv-00952-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 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

2

II. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

Plaintiff does not anticipate joining any additional parties or amending the pleading. 

Defendant has moved to dismiss arguing, in part, that plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable 

party. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted 

without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 27 604 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the 

filing of motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good 

cause to modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 

609. Moreover, any amendment requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not 

be: (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).

III. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case or that do not relate to

sealing or redaction of documents related to dispositive motions are referred to the assigned 

United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to his or her 

procedures. (The assigned magistrate judge’s initials follow the district judge’s initials next to the 

case number.) All discovery documents must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in 

the caption to ensure proper routing. Do not direct delivery of courtesy copies of these 

documents to the district judge. Counsel are directed to contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom 

deputy clerk to schedule discovery matters for hearing. 

All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the assigned magistrate judge’s

calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and the magistrate judge’s own 

procedures. The written ruling of the assigned magistrate judge shall be final, subject to 

modification by the district court only where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order 

is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Local Rule 

303, any party may file and serve a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of 

Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See L.R. 303(c). The requesting party must file and serve any such 

request within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling. L.R. 303(b). The request must 

Case 2:23-cv-00952-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 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

3

specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the basis for that

contention with supporting points and authorities. L.R. 303(c).

In addition, the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective 

orders sought by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. However, requests to seal or redact in 

connection with dispositive motions or trial are decided by Judge Drozd and any such requests 

must comply with Judge Drozd’s Standing Order and Local Rules 140 and 141.

IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES

A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures

The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Rule 26(a)(1) no later than 14 days after the date of entry of this scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(1)(C). Any parties served or joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall “make 

the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined,” as provided by Rule 

26(a)(1)(D).

B. Fact Discovery

All fact discovery shall be completed1no later than May 10, 2024. The parties do not 

propose any limitations or changes to the governing provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

C. Expert Discovery

Disclosures of expert witnesses, if any, must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information required thereunder. Each 

expert witness must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the 

disclosures. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the imposition of 

////

1

 As used herein, the word “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so 

that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to discovery shall have been 

resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has 

been obeyed. The parties are advised that motions to compel must be filed in advance of the 

discovery completion deadlines so that the court may grant effective relief within the allotted 

discovery time. A party’s failure to have a discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the 

discovery cutoff may result in denial of the motion as untimely.

Case 2:23-cv-00952-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 11/21/23 Page 3 of 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

4

appropriate sanctions, including the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence 

offered through the expert.

The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than May 17, 2024. With regard to expert testimony 

intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in accordance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before June 17, 2024.

All expert discovery shall be completed no later than July 17, 2024. 

V. MOTIONS

All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other 

emergency applications, shall be filed on or before August 23, 2024, and shall be noticed for 

hearing before Judge Drozd on a date not more than 60 days from the date the motion is filed and 

on a date that is consistent with Judge Drozd’s Standing Order. Counsel are directed to refer to 

the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing and opposing such motions on the court’s 

regularly scheduled law and motion calendar.

Prior to filing a motion for summary judgment or motion for partial summary judgment 

(summary adjudication), the parties are ordered to meet and confer, in person or by telephone, to 

discuss the issues to be raised in the motion. In addition to complying with the requirements 

of Local Rule 260, the parties must prepare a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, which 

identifies all relevant facts subject to agreement by all parties. The moving party is 

responsible for filing the joint statement concurrently with the motion. In the notice of motion, 

the moving party shall certify that the parties have met and conferred as ordered above or provide

a statement of good cause for the failure to do so.

VI. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

District Judge Dale A. Drozd requires parties to participate in a court-supervised 

settlement conference with a settlement judge before the action may proceed to trial. A 

settlement conference has not been set at this time. At any time before the final pretrial 

conference, the parties may file a joint request that this action be referred to a settlement judge for 

the setting of a settlement conference. If the parties have not participated in a court-supervised 

Case 2:23-cv-00952-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 11/21/23 Page 4 of 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

5

settlement conference by the time of the final pretrial conference, the court will refer the action at 

that time to the assigned magistrate judge for the setting of a settlement conference. The parties 

shall contact the designated settlement conference judge’s chambers to ascertain that judge’s

settlement conference procedures, including the procedure for submitting confidential settlement 

statements, which shall not be filed and will not otherwise be disclosed to the trial judge.

Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the court, the attorneys who will try the case 

shall appear at the settlement conference. Pertinent evidence to be offered at trial, documents or 

otherwise, should be brought to the settlement conference for presentation to the settlement judge. 

Of course, neither the settlement conference statements nor communications during the settlement 

conference with the settlement judge can be used by either party in the trial of this case. 

Absent permission from the court, in addition to counsel who will try the case being 

present, the individual parties shall also be present, and in the case of corporate parties, 

associations or other entities, and insurance carriers, a representative executive with unrestricted 

authority to discuss, consider, propose and agree, or disagree, to any settlement proposal or offer 

shall also be present. If for any reason the representative with unlimited authority cannot attend, 

such a person must be available by phone or video throughout the conference. In other words, 

having settlement authority “up to a certain amount” is not acceptable. 

VII. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for January 14, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. before District 

Court Judge Dale A. Drozd by Zoom. Parties will receive a Zoom ID number and password for 

the final pretrial conference by email from Judge Drozd’s Courtroom Deputy Pete Buzo 

(PBuzo@caed.uscourts.gov). Any other interested parties or members of the public may access 

the conference telephonically by dialing 888−557−8511 and using access code 9683466, at the 

time of the conference. Because several matters may be set for the same afternoon, the parties 

will be notified in advance of the conference at what specific time the court anticipates calling 

their case so they can join the Zoom at that time.

The parties are directed to file a joint pretrial statement, carefully prepared and executed 

by all counsel, that complies with the requirements of this Local Rule 281 and Judge Drozd’s 

Case 2:23-cv-00952-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 11/21/23 Page 5 of 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

6

Standing Order. Counsel shall also email a copy of the joint pretrial statement in Word format to 

Judge Drozd’s chambers at dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

The parties’ attention is directed to Local Rules 281 and 282. This court will insist upon 

strict compliance with these rules. At the pretrial conference, the court will set deadlines to file 

trial documents, including motions in limine, trial briefs, and proposed jury voir dire, instructions, 

and verdict forms (where applicable).

VIII. JURY TRIAL

A jury trial is set for March 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before District Court 

Judge Dale A. Drozd. The parties have not provided an estimate of the number of court days 

anticipated for the trial of this case.

IX. REQUEST FOR BIFURCATION, APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER, OR 

OTHER TECHNIQUES TO SHORTEN TRIAL

The parties have not made any such requests at this time and do not anticipate any such 

requests.

X. RELATED MATTERS PENDING

There is no related litigation.

XI. OBJECTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE SCHEDULING ORDER

This case schedule will become final without further order of the court unless 

objections are filed within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. The schedule, once 

final, shall not be modified except by leave of court upon showing of good cause. The assigned 

magistrate judge is authorized to modify only the discovery dates to the extent any such 

modification does not impact the balance of the schedule of the case.

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, no stipulations extending scheduling requirements or modifying applicable rules are 

effective until and unless the court approves them. Agreement of the parties by stipulation alone 

does not constitute good cause. Any request or stipulation to modify this scheduling order must 

set forth: 

////

Case 2:23-cv-00952-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 11/21/23 Page 6 of 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

7

(1) the existing due date or hearing date as well as the discovery cutoff date, the last 

date for hearing motions, the final pretrial conference date, and the trial date;

(2) whether there have been prior requests for extensions, and whether these were 

granted or denied by the court; and 

(3) specific, concrete reasons supporting good cause for granting of the extension. For 

example, if the reason for the requested extension is that it “will promote 

settlement,” the requesting party or parties must indicate the status of ongoing 

negotiations, i.e., have written proposals been exchanged; is counsel in the process 

of reviewing a draft settlement agreement; has a mediator been selected.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2023

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.civil/ussery0952.sched.ord

Case 2:23-cv-00952-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 11/21/23 Page 7 of 7