Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04159/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04159-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIA PUGH, et al.,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 08-4159 PJH

v. SCHEDULING ORDER

DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Following the discussion of scheduling at the case management conference on

January 21, 2010, the court orders as follows. Plaintiffs’ request for a continuance of the

discovery cutoff dates, expert disclosure dates and hearing date on pending motions for

summary judgment is essentially a request to reopen discovery and to commence the

litigation anew, in that all deadlines for these events have passed. Plaintiff’s substitution of

counsel, particularly in the absence of any allegation of incompetence on the part of former

counsel, is insufficient to outweigh the prejudice to defendants who have prepared and filed

their dispositive motions on the basis of the discovery that was timely produced. 

Additionally, if the discovery and pleadings were reopened as requested by plaintiffs, they

are not in a position to bear the expenses incurred by defendants to prepare their pending

motions and it would be unfair for the court to order defendants, who have met all of the

court-imposed deadlines, to have to bear the expense of their counsel having to rewrite

their motions. Thus, the court denies the request to reopen the discovery or pleadings in

this case.

However, even though the court has already granted one thirty day extension for the

filing of plaintiffs’ opposition and for the hearing, the court grants one further and final thirty

Case 4:08-cv-04159-PJH Document 62 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 2
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

day extension. Plaintiffs’ opposition shall be filed by February 24, 2010; the reply by March

3, 2010. The hearing is continued to March 17, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.

The trial is scheduled to commence on May 10, 2010. Accordingly the pretrial

papers must be filed thirty days before the April 15, 2010 pretrial conference – March 16,

2010, which is the day before the hearing on dispositive motions. So that the parties might

have a few weeks to prepare their pretrial papers, the court revises the pretrial schedule as

follows:

Pretrial Conference continued to: April 29, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.

Pretrial papers to be filed: April 5, 2010

Opposition to motions in limine to be filed: April 15, 2010

No further continuances will be permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-04159-PJH Document 62 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2