Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

SABAS ARREDONDO ET. AL.

Plaintiff,

v.

DELANO FARMS COMPANY ET. AL,

Defendant.

1:09-CV-1247 MJS

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Plaintiff’s Survey Completion Deadline:

 September 25, 2015

Expert Disclosure Deadlines: 

 Plaintiff: November 24, 2015

 Defendants: January 15, 2016

Discovery Deadline: March 1, 2016 

 

Trial Plan Deadlines: 

 Filing by Plaintiffs: November 24, 2015

 Response by Defendants: 

 January 15, 2016

 Reply by Plaintiffs: February 12, 2016

 Hearing: March 11, 2016, at 9:30 AM 

 Fresno Courtroom 6 (MJS)

Continued Trial Scheduling Conference:

 June 16, 2016 at 11:00 AM 

. Fresno Courtroom 6 (MJS)

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 377 Filed 06/30/15 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

2

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

The Scheduling Conference was held on June 26, 2015 at 11:00 AM.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Tom Lynch and Anna K. Walther appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.

David Bruce, Miles Yanick, and William Hahesy appeared on behalf of

Defendants Delano Farms Company. D. Greg Durbin and Sarah Bigelow, appeared on 

behalf of Defendants Cal-Pacific Farm Management, L.P. and T&R Bangi’s Agricultural 

Services, Inc. 

III. Pleading Amendment Deadline

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend the Complaint. The motion is 

scheduled for hearing August 7, 2015. The schedule adopted here was determined 

without consideration of the effect of the ruling on the motion to amend.

IV. Plaintiffs’ Trial Plan

The parties agreed, and the Court determined, that Plaintiffs would have 

until September 25, 2015, to complete their survey of certain of Defendants’ former field 

worker as necessary to Plaintiffs’ determination of a proposed plan for trying issues of 

liability and damages in this case (Plaintiffs’ proposed “Trial Plan”).

Plaintiffs shall file and serve their proposed Trial Plan on or before 

November 24, 2015. Defendants shall have until January 15, 2016, to file and serve 

written responses to Plaintiff’s proposed Trial Plan, and then Plaintiffs shall have until 

February 12, 2016, to file and serve a reply to Defendants’ responses. A hearing on 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Trial Plan shall be held March 11, 2016 at 9:30 AM, in Courtroom 6, 

before the Honorable Michael J. Seng, United States Magistrate Judge.1

 

1

The parties had proposed a hearing be held on Plaintiffs’ Proposed Trial Plan in mid-March, 

(continued...)

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 377 Filed 06/30/15 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

V. Expert Disclosure. 

 Plaintiffs shall disclose their expert witnesses, in writing, on or before 

November 24, 2015. Defendants shall then disclose their expert witnesses, in writing, on 

or before January 15, 2016. The written designation of experts shall be made pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26 (a)(2) (A) and (B) and shall include all information required 

thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this Order may result in the 

Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through experts who are not 

disclosed in accordance with the terms of this order.

VI. Discovery Deadline

Discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may 

continue until March 1, 2016, but not thereafter except on order of the Court or

stipulation of all parties.

VII. Discovery Motions

No written discovery motion may be noticed or set for hearing before Magistrate 

Judge Michael J. Seng without his prior approval. 

A party with a discovery dispute shall confer with opposing counsel in a 

good faith effort to resolve the dispute without court action. If such effort fails, the 

moving party shall, prior to filing a notice of motion, contact Courtroom Deputy Laurie Yu 

at lyu@caed.uscourts.gov to request a pre-motion Telephonic Discovery Dispute 

Conference (TDDC) with the Magistrate Judge. The request shall be deemed to include 

a professional representation by the requesting lawyer that a good faith effort to resolve 

the dispute took place but failed, and it shall advise the Court of dates and times in the 

 

(...continued)

2016. During the Scheduling Conference the Court stated an intent to hold that hearing May 6, 2016. On 

reflection, it appears the March date can be accommodated and is preferable in that it avoids a potential 

scheduling conflict on the part of one defense counsel. Any party adversely affected by this change shall 

notify the Court immediately.

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 377 Filed 06/30/15 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

4

next ten day period when all concerned parties will be available to confer regarding the 

dispute. The Court will issue a Minute Order advising counsel of the time and date of the 

telephone conference. No recording of the conference shall take place except with prior 

permission of the Court. 

Not later than four business hours before the scheduled conference, each 

party may submit a two page brief objectively and factually outlining the dispute, the 

party’s position on it, and the reasons therefore to mjsorders@caed.uscourts.gov The 

one page shall be in at least twelve point type and include the above-described 

information, the name of the party and the date of submission. It shall contain nothing 

more. There shall be no attachments. There shall be no editorializing. Inclusion therein 

of adjectives or adverbs or any characterization of an opponent’s motives, methods, 

character, past practices, or the like shall subject the author to sanctions. 

If the Magistrate Judge decides that motion papers and supporting 

memoranda are needed to satisfactorily resolve the dispute, he shall approve the filing of 

a written motion in conformity with Local Rule 251 (a). (The provisions of Local Rule 251 

(b) through (f) will not apply unless the Magistrate Judge so orders.) Such motion shall, 

without limitation, (1) quote in full each interrogatory, deposition question, request for 

admission, or request for production in dispute and (2) the response or objection and 

grounds therefore as stated by the opposing party. 

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, deposition transcripts or discovery papers 

shall not be lodged or filed with the Court. 

Unless otherwise hereinafter requested by the Court after a document has been 

filed with the Court, no party shall provide an extra courtesy copy of any document

to the Court regardless of the size or volume of the document. 

VIII. Continued Trial Scheduling Conference

A continued Trial scheduling Conference shall be held at 11:00 a.m., June 16, 

2016, in Courtroom 6, Fresno, before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. A Joint 

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 377 Filed 06/30/15 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

Scheduling Conference Report carefully prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be 

electronically filed in CM/ECF, in full compliance with the requirements set forth in the 

previously served ORDER SETTING MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, at 

least one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, and shall be emailed, in Word 

format, to mjsorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 377 Filed 06/30/15 Page 5 of 5