Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01559/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01559-11/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

08cv1559 BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOOT WINC, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RSM McGLADREY FINANCIAL

PROCESS OUTSOURCING, LLC, and

DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08cv1559 BTM (WMc)

RULING FOLLOWING

TELECONFERENCE RE: JOINT

DISCOVERY PLAN

I.

INTRODUCTION

On September 12, 2011, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference to review the

parties’ Joint Discovery Plan which was lodged with the Court on August 1, 2011. Alexander

Conti, Esq., appeared for Plaintiffs. Anthony Durone, Esq., appeared for Defendant. After

hearing from counsel of record, and good cause appearing, the Court issues the following orders:

1. Defendant shall be allowed to take the deposition of plaintiff’s liability expert Jennifer 

Ziegler. Plaintiff shall also be allowed to take the deposition of defendant’s liability

expert. (The court did not need any additional briefing on this matter.)

2. Similarly, to the extent any party’s experts relies on new material to develop a

supplemental opinion, he/she may be deposed thereon. The parties are free to conduct

appropriate discovery on the new material.

///

Case 3:08-cv-01559-BTM-WMC Document 264 Filed 09/12/11 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 08cv1559 BTM (WMc)

3. The new discovery cut-off date is February 17, 2012.

4. The parties are ordered to supplement their expert reports, but only if the party feels

supplementation is necessary. The party that does not supplement its expert reports must

live by that decision. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101,

1105-1106 (9th Cir. 2001).

5. Each party must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) (A).

6. The court will not set another dispositive motion cut-off date.

7. The new Pretrial Conference date before the Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz is May 15,

2012, 3:30p.m.

8. Defendant is allowed to personally serve a second set of Interrogatories upon Hoot Winc,

specifically interrogatories numbers 1 through and including 8. The proposed

interrogatories were already submitted as Exhibit 3 to defendant’s previous submittal to

the Court.

9. Defendant shall have the right to personally serve its second set of Requests for

Production upon plaintiff Hoot Winc. To the extent Hoot Winc has not already provided

the documents requested, Hoot Winc must provide the documents. If Hoot Winc has

already provided the documents, it does not have to provide them a second time. The

proposed requests for production were already submitted to the court as Exhibit 4 to

defendant’s previous submittal to the Court.

10. Plaintiff is allowed to personally serve upon defendant its second set of Interrogatories. 

These interrogatories were submitted to the court as exhibit A to the parties’ Joint

Discovery Plan lodged pursuant to the court order dated July 18, 2011.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-01559-BTM-WMC Document 264 Filed 09/12/11 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 08cv1559 BTM (WMc)

11. Plaintiff is allowed to personally serve its second set of Requests for Production on

defendant. This Request for Production was submitted to the court as exhibit B to the

parties’ Joint Discovery Plan lodged pursuant to the court order dated July 18, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2011

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01559-BTM-WMC Document 264 Filed 09/12/11 Page 3 of 3