Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02296/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02296-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the )

use and benefit of ACCO ENGINEERED ) 2:06-CV-2296-GEB-EFB

SYSTEMS, INC., doing business as )

ACCO Air Conditioning Co., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC., a )

corporation; RQ CONSTRUCTION, INC.,)

a corporation; SKANSKA USA )

BUILDING, INC./RQ CONSTRUCTION, )

INC., a joint venture; TRAVELERS )

CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF )

AMERICA, a corporation; FIDELITY )

AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a )

corporation; and DOES 1-20, )

inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On November 14, 2007, the parties filed a “Stipulation and

Proposed Order Extending Deadline to Serve Rebuttal to Expert Witness

Disclosures” (“Proposed Order”), which includes language that certain 

Rule 16 scheduling deadlines should be suspended indefinitely. 

Suspending Rule 16 scheduling deadlines indefinitely would be

Case 2:06-cv-02296-GEB-EFB Document 46 Filed 11/19/07 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

inconsistent with Rule 16(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which encourages courts to establish early and continuing

control of scheduling “so that the case will not be protracted because

of lack of management.” The parties Proposed Order will not be signed

since “good cause” has not been shown justifying modification of the

Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Further, “Counsel [were] cautioned [in the

Rule 16 Scheduling Order filed February 12, 2007 at page 7] that a

mere stipulation by itself to change dates does not constitute good

cause.” (emphasis in original)

But since the parties agree to modify the Rule 16 Scheduling

Order, and modifications can be made without adversely affecting the

undersigned judge’s docket, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order is modified

as follows:

(1) Each party shall comply with rebuttal expert

disclosures authorized under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)

on or before February 1, 2008;

(2) all discovery shall be completed by April 16, 2008; 

(3) the last hearing date for motions shall be June 16,

2008, at 10:00 a.m.; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02296-GEB-EFB Document 46 Filed 11/19/07 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

The parties’ requested modification of the Rule 16 Scheduling 1

Order has resulted in a shorten period between the trial commencement

date of September 23, 2008, and the final pretrial conference. Because

of this reduction, it is unlikely that a settlement conference

supervised by a federal judge will be scheduled in this action.

3

(4) the final pretrial conference is set for August 11,

2008, at 11:00 a.m.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02296-GEB-EFB Document 46 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 3