Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02263/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02263-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

JENNIFER A. BLUM, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-CV-2263-KJM-DMC

SCHEDULING ORDER

 Plaintiffs, who are proceeding with retained counsel, bring this civil action. Upon 

referral by the District Judge, the parties appeared before the undersigned on November 22, 2024, 

at 10:00 a.m., for an initial scheduling conference. Upon consideration of the joint status report 

on file in this action, discussion with counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court will, 

by this order, set a schedule pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 1. Jurisdiction and venue are not contested. 

 2. No further joinder of parties or amendments to the pleadings is permitted 

without stipulation or leave of Court for good cause shown. 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Crown Motors as a 

defendant to this action, such party having been dismissed in state court prior to removal. 

/ / /

Case 2:24-cv-02263-KJM-DMC Document 11 Filed 12/04/24 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

 4. The parties are advised that they may, if all consent, have the matter reassigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment, to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 

Given the extraordinary back-log of civil cases in this district, coupled with the shortage of 

District Judges and pandemic-related delays in criminal cases, it is not anticipated that this matter 

could be set for trial before the assigned District Judge at any time within the next two years. A 

trial before the District Judge within the next three years is also unlikely. The parties will be able 

to obtain an earlier trial date by consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Any jury trial by 

consent to the undersigned would be conducted in Sacramento, California. The parties are 

encouraged to meet and confer regarding the issue of consent and requested to notify the Court of 

the respective elections at their earliest opportunity. 

 5. The Court sets the following pre-trial schedule for this litigation:

 Initial Disclosures: The parties are directed to exchange initial disclosures as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) on or before December 6, 2024. 

 Non-Expert Discovery: All non-expert discovery shall be completed and all 

motions pertaining to non-expert discovery shall be noticed to be heard by September 5, 2025. 

 Expert Witness Designations: The parties shall exchange initial lists of expert 

witnesses no later than September 19, 2025. The parties shall exchange lists of rebuttal expert 

witnesses no later than October 3, 2025. Such disclosures must be made pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) and (B). The parties are reminded of their obligation to 

supplement these disclosures when required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). 

 Expert Discovery: All expert discovery shall be completed and all motions 

pertaining to expert discovery shall be noticed to be heard by November 17, 2025. 

 Discovery Motions: Motions regarding discovery shall be noticed before the 

assigned Magistrate Judge, as provided by Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c). 

 Dispositive Motions: All dispositive motions shall be filed and notice for hearing 

on the earliest available law and motion date on the District Judge’s calendar in accordance with 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(a) by February 6, 2026. 

/ / /

Case 2:24-cv-02263-KJM-DMC Document 11 Filed 12/04/24 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

 Duty to Supplement: The parties are reminded of their continuing obligation to 

supplement their initial disclosures, discovery responses, and expert witness designations when 

required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). 

 6. After consideration of the parties’ comments related to settlement, the 

parties are directed to notify the Court prior to any final pre-trial conference whether they request 

a court settlement conference date or referral to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program. The 

parties shall file said notification or request for referral jointly, in writing. If the parties are 

requesting a court-convened settlement conference, the parties shall also advise whether they 

waive a conflict as to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the purposes of a court-convened 

settlement conference. 

 7. The pre-trial conference and trial dates will be set by separate order.

 8. This case schedule will become final without further order of the Court 

unless objections are filed within 14 days of the date of this order. The schedule, once final, shall 

not be modified except on application to the Court showing good cause. All provisions of the 

District Judge’s Standing Scheduling Order for Civil Cases, which the Clerk of the Court is 

directed to file concurrently with this order, shall apply and are incorporated herein. 

Dated: December 3, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02263-KJM-DMC Document 11 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 3