Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY CEMENT, INC., a

California Corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND

SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a

Connecticut corporation

authorized to do business in

California; GRAY CONSTRUCTION,

INC., a Kentucky corporation

authorized to do business

in California, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:10-cv-00500-GEB-DAD

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

ORDER

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for June

28, 2010, is vacated since the parties’ Joint Status Report filed on

June 14, 2010 (“JSR”), indicates the following Order should issue.

DISCOVERY

All discovery shall be completed by February 25, 2011. In

this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have been

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes

relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate orders, if

necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been

Case 2:10-cv-00500-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 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

The Magistrate Judges in the Eastern District are responsible 1

for resolving discovery disputes. See Local Rule 302(c)(1). A party

conducting discovery near the discovery "completion" date risks losing

the opportunity to have a judge resolve a discovery dispute concerning

that discovery.

This time deadline does not apply to motions for continuances, 2

temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under

Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such compliance

shall have expired.1

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2)(c)(i)’s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or

before September 28, 2010, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert

disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before October

28, 2010.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be April 18, 2011, at

9:00 a.m.2

Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(b).

Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(c).

Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed consent to the

motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Brydges v.

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). Further, failure to timely

oppose a summary judgment motion may result in the granting of that

motion if the movant shifts the burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate

a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. Cf. Marshall v.

Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995). 

///

///

///

Case 2:10-cv-00500-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a

motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence

that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of

the party’s motion or opposition papers;

(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial decision

was manifestly unjust; or

(3) There is an intervening change in controlling law.

A motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence shall

set forth, in detail, the reason why said evidence could not reasonably

have been discovered prior to the filing of the party’s motion or

opposition papers. 

Motions for reconsideration shall comply with Local Rule

230(j) in all other respects.

The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion

characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion

in limine addresses the admissibility of evidence.

 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for June 27, 2011, at

1:30 p.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who WILL TRY

THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial conference. In

addition, all persons representing themselves and appearing in propria

persona must attend the pretrial conference.

The parties are warned that non-trial worthy issues could be

eliminated sua sponte “[i]f the pretrial conference discloses that no

material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed facts entitle one

of the parties to judgment as a matter of law.” Portsmouth Square v.

S’holders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Case 2:10-cv-00500-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 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

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in 3

the preparation of any joint document required to be filed in this case

does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file

the document in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails

to participate as ordered, the party or parties timely submitting the

document shall include a declaration explaining why they were unable to

obtain the cooperation of the other party. 

The joint pretrial statement shall also state how much time 4

each party desires for voir dire, opening statements, and closing

arguments.

4

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no later

than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial conference.3

The joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues for trial,

including a description of the theories of liability and the affirmative

defenses as to each legal theory, and shall estimate the length of the

trial. The Court uses the parties’ joint pretrial statement to prepare 4

its final pretrial order and could issue the final pretrial order

without holding the scheduled final pretrial conference. See Mizwicki

v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999) (“There is no requirement

that the court hold a pretrial conference.”). 

If possible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial

statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with

WordPerfect to: geborders@caed.uscourts.gov.

TRIAL SETTING

Trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on September 27, 2011.

MISCELLANEOUS

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 16(b), the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall not

be modified except by leave of Court for good cause shown. 

///

///

Case 2:10-cv-00500-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/22/10 Page 4 of 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

5

Counsel are cautioned that a mere stipulation by itself to

change dates does not constitute good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-00500-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/22/10 Page 5 of 5