Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01445/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01445-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On March 24, 2016, Defendants filed an ex parte application1seeking an extension of time to 

complete expert discovery. (Doc. 41-1) However, the scheduling order requires the moving party to 

seek an informal conference with the Court before the party may file any motion related to discovery. 

(Doc. 17 at 3-4) Thus, the Court initiated and held the informal conference on March 28, 2016. 

At the conference, the Court learned that defense counsel had not spoken to his experts to 

determine their availability during the three-week extension of time sought in the motion. Moreover, 

if the Court grants an extension, Plaintiff’s attorney likewise would need to discuss availability with 

their experts. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. No later than close of business today, counsel SHALL obtain dates that their experts 

and they are available between April 5 and April 29, 2016. No later than noon on March 29, 2016, 

 

1 Notably, Defendants fail to show why they believed that the motion could or should be heard ex parte. L.R. 230.

BAKERSFIELD PIPE & SUPPLY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CORNERSTONE VALVE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01445 JLT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO 

AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER

(Doc. 39)

Case 1:14-cv-01445-JLT Document 44 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

counsel SHALL exchange the dates that they and their experts are available. No later than noon on 

March 30, 2016, counsel SHALL notify their opponent which of the proposed dates will work on 

their calendars.2

2. No later than close of business on March 31, 2016, counsel SHALL file a joint 

statement indicating the dates they will take the expert depositions. If necessary, the Court will 

schedule a further informal telephonic conference. Otherwise, the Court will issue an order related to 

the proposed dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 Neither side may insist that their opponent’s experts will be taken first. Fed. R. Div. P. 26(d)(3). Likewise, neither side is 

permitted to reject a proposed date merely because a party wishes to be present for the depositions. If a party wishes to be 

present, he/she/it SHALL make himself/herself/itself available on dates convenient to the deponents and counsel.

Case 1:14-cv-01445-JLT Document 44 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 2