Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04548/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04548-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Fereshte Faustini,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Microsoft Corporation,

Defendant.

 /

NO. C 04-04548 JW 

SCHEDULING ORDER

On October 17, 2006, the Court conducted a case management conference in the above-entitled

matter. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to comply with the following schedule:

A. Standing Order to Lodge Printed Copy of "ECF" Papers

1. In all cases, including cases covered by the Electronic Case Filing System of the Court

"ECF," when filing papers in connection with any motion for determination by the Judge or

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statements and Proposed Orders, the parties shall,

in addition to filing papers electronically, lodge with Chambers a printed copy of the papers by the

close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. See Standing Order

Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases. These printed copies shall be submitted to the Clerk's

Office, in an envelope clearly marked "Chambers Copy -- Lodged for the Chambers of Judge Ware"

and shall state the case name and case number. Parties shall not "file" a paper copy of any document

with the Clerk's Office that has already been e-filed.

Case 5:04-cv-04548-JW Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

B. Compliance with Discovery Plan and Reference to Magistrate Judge

2. The parties are ordered to comply with the discovery plan set forth in the Joint Case

Management Statement. Any disputes with respect to the implementation of the discovery plan and

all disclosure or discovery disputes are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. In addition, any

disputes pertaining to service or joinder of parties or claims are referred to the assigned Magistrate

Judge.

C. Document Management During Pretrial Discovery and Electronic Evidence Presentation

3. This Court has available a digital and video electronic evidence presentation system. 

The parties are ordered to familiarize themselves with the system, and to meet and confer about

whether the case will involve voluminous documentary. If so, as the parties identify documentary

material which is likely to be used as trial exhibits, the parties are ordered to electronically store

these materials in a fashion which will facilitate displaying them electronically during the trial. The

parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 30-2(b) requires sequential numbering of exhibits during

depositions and that numbering must be maintained for those exhibits throughout the litigation. Each

proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked for identification. All exhibits shall be marked with numerals. 

The parties shall meet and confer on a division which will avoid duplication (e.g., Plaintiff: 1-

99,000; Defendant: 100,000-299,999). The Court's standard order for pretrial preparation also

applies. The Court orders as follows:

D. Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

4. Any party wishing to present expert witness testimony with respect to a claim or a

defense shall lodge with the Court and serve on all other parties the name, address, qualifications,

résumé and a written report which complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) on or before April 24,

2006. 

5. Expert witness disclosure must be made with respect to a person who is either (a)

specially retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702 or

(b) a regular employee or agent or treating physician who may be called to provide expert opinion

testimony.

Case 5:04-cv-04548-JW Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6. The parties are also required to lodge any supplemental reports to which any expert will

testify at trial in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

7. Any party objecting to the qualifications or proposed testimony of an expert must file,

serve and notice a motion to exclude the expert or any portion of the expert's testimony in writing in

accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, for hearing no later than June 8, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

E. Rebuttal Expert Witnesses

8. If the testimony of the expert is intended solely to contradict or rebut opinion testimony on

the same subject matter identified by another party, the party proffering a rebuttal expert shall make

the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B), no later than May 4, 2006.

F. Limitation on Testimony by Expert Witnesses

9. Unless the parties enter into a written stipulation otherwise, upon timely objection, an

expert witness shall be precluded from testifying about any actions or opinions not disclosed prior to

the expert’s deposition. This is to ensure that all factual material upon which expert opinion may be

based and all tests and reports are completed prior to the expert deposition. Unless application is

made prior to the close of expert discovery, each party will be limited to calling only one expert

witness in each discipline involved in the case. 

G. Close of Discovery

10. The parties have stipulated to a date for close of all pre-trial discovery. Pursuant to

Civil L.R. 26-2, all discovery, including supplemental disclosure, depositions of expert witnesses,

must be completed by June 23, 2006.

H. Last date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

11. The last day for hearing dispositive motions is September 11, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Any

motions must be noticed in accordance with the Local Rules of this Court.

I. Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statement and Proposed Order

12. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to confer with one another and to file

and lodge with Chambers on September 29, 2006, a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting

Conference Statement and Proposed Order, stating their readiness for trial, the amount of time which

Case 5:04-cv-04548-JW Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the Court should allocate for trial and the calendar period for the trial. Ordinarily, depending on the

length of the trial the Court will set the trial during a calendar period approximately three to four

months after the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference. In the Statement discussed in this

paragraph, the parties should show any cause why the case should be advanced or delayed beyond

this period. 

13. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to appear on October 9, 2006 at 11:00

a.m. for a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference.

14. With respect to the time allocation for trial, at the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting

Conference trial counsel will be asked to stipulate to a time allocation to each side for the trial of

the case. Once a stipulated allocation has been entered, the parties must plan their presentations to

conform to the stipulated time allocation.

15. With respect to the calendar period for trial, based on the time allotted to the case, a

calendar period for trial will be set. In the event it becomes necessary to delay the start of trial

because of the Court's calendar, the commencement date will trail from day-to day until the other

matter is concluded or further order of court.

J. Alternative Dispute Resolution

16. The parties have scheduled a private mediation session for January 18, 2006. A further

case management conference is set for February 13, 2006 at 10:00 am.

None of the dates set in this order may be changed without an order of the court made after a

motion is duly filed and made pursuant to the local rules of this court.

Dated: October 18, 2005 

04eciv4548cmcheld

 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04548-JW Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Donna M. Mezias dmezias@jonesday.com

Melissa Ellen Lamfalusi MelissaL@prestongates.com

Robert M. Lubin r1817@aol.com

Dated: October 18, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-04548-JW Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 Page 5 of 5