Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06405/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06405-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 31:3731 Fraud

---

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 One action is this action, while the other is 1:99cv5878 AWI DLB. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE FLORES, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

DENNIS HAGOBIAN, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04cv6405 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO SET JOINT 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

(Document 125)

ORDER SETTING MANDATORY

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Date: September 26, 2007

Time: 8:45 a.m.

Courtroom 9

On August 22, 2007, Plaintiffs Joe and Connie Flores (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the

instant ex parte application to set a joint scheduling conference. 

On June 19, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ first request to set a joint scheduling

conference because the bankruptcy stay had not been lifted.

On August 3, 2007, James Edward Salven, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of DDJ, Inc.,

joined in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on May 10, 2007.

In the instant ex parte request, Plaintiffs indicate that they filed motions for relief from

stay in the bankruptcy actions of DDJ, Inc. and DDJ, LLC. Plaintiffs moved for relief from the

automatic stay to allow them to proceed in two actions pending in this Court. On August 9, 1

2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion relating to DDJ, Inc. as unnecessary, explaining

that Mr. Salven is already participating in the action on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, along

Case 1:04-cv-06405-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 6
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

with Mr. Flores. Also on August 9, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion relating to

DDJ, LLC., based on the lengthy pendency of the Chapter 7 case and lack of opposition. 

As it now appears that Plaintiffs can proceed with this action, their ex parte request is

GRANTED. A mandatory scheduling conference is set for September 26, 2007, at 8:45 a.m. in

Courtroom 6, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory upon each party not represented

by counsel or, alternatively, by retained counsel. Only counsel who are thoroughly familiar with

the facts and the law of the instant case, and who have full authority to bind his or her client,

shall appear. Trial counsel should participate in this Scheduling Conference whenever possible.

It may be necessary for counsel to spend as much as 45 minutes in this Conference.

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

electronically filed in CM/ECF, one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, and shall

be e-mailed, in WordPerfect or Word format, to dlborders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

For reference purposes, the Court requires that counsels' Joint Scheduling Report indicate

the date, time, and courtroom of the Scheduling Conference opposite the caption on the first page

of the Report. 

Among other things, counsel will be expected to discuss the possibility of settlement. 

Counsel are to thoroughly discuss settlement with each other before undertaking the preparation

of the Joint Scheduling Report and engaging in extensive discovery. However, even if settlement

negotiations are progressing, counsel are expected to comply with the requirements of this Order

unless otherwise excused by the Court. If the case is settled, please promptly inform the Court,

and counsels' presence, as well as the Joint Scheduling Report, will not be required.

Counsel may request that their attendance be by telephonic conference. If two or

more parties wish to appear telephonically, counsel shall decide which will be responsible for

making prior arrangements for the conference call and shall initiate the call at the

above-designated time. After all parties are on the line, the call should then be placed to Judge

Beck's chambers at 559-499-5671. Additionally, counsel are directed to indicate on the

face page of their Joint Scheduling Report that the conference will be telephonic.

Case 1:04-cv-06405-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 6
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

At least twenty (20) days prior to the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, the actual trial

counsel for all parties shall conduct and conclude a conference at a time and place arranged by

counsel for the plaintiff(s). This conference should preferably be a personal conference between

all counsel but, due to the distances involved in this District, a telephonic conference call

involving all counsel is permissible. The Joint Scheduling Report Shall respond to the following

items by corresponding numbered paragraphs:

Form and Contents of the Joint Scheduling Report

1. Summary of the factual and legal contentions set forth in the pleadings of each party,

including the relief sought by any party presently before the Court.

2. Any proposed amendment to the pleadings presently on file shall be filed by its

proponent contemporaneously with the Scheduling Conference Report. If the matter cannot be

resolved at the Scheduling Conference, the matter will be set as a Motion to Amend in

accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California. A proposed deadline

for amendments to pleadings.

3. A summary detailing the uncontested and contested facts.

4. A summary of the legal issues as to which there is no dispute, i.e., jurisdiction, venue,

applicable federal or state law, etc., as well as a summary of the disputed legal issues.

5. The status of all matters which are presently set before the Court, i.e., hearing all

motions, etc. 

6. A complete and detailed discovery plan addressing the following:

(a) A date for the exchange of initial disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)

or a statement that disclosures have already been exchanged;

(b) A firm cut-off date for non-expert discovery;

(c) A firm date(s) for disclosure of expert witnesses as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(a)(2);

(d) firm cut-off date for expert witness discovery;

(e) Any proposed changes in the limits on discovery imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(b); 30(a)(2)(A), (B) or (C); 30(d); or 33(a);

Case 1:04-cv-06405-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 08/28/07 Page 3 of 6
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

(f) Whether the parties anticipate the need for a protective order relating to the

discovery of information relating to a trade secret or other confidential research,

development, or commercial information;

(g) Any issues or proposals relating to the timing; sequencing, phasing or

scheduling of discovery;

(h) Whether the parties anticipate the need to take Discovery outside the United

States and if so a description of the proposed discovery;

(i) Whether any party anticipates video and/or sound recording of depositions;

(j) A proposed date for a Mid-Discovery Status Report and Conference;

7. Discovery relating to Electronic, Digital and/or Magnetic data.

Prior to a Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference, counsel should Carefully investigate their

client's information management system so that they are knowledgeable as to its operation,

including how information is stored and how it can be retrieved. Likewise, counsel shall

reasonably review the client's computer files to ascertain the contents thereof; including archival

and legacy data (outdated formats or media), and disclose in initial discovery (self-executing

routine discovery) the computer based evidence which may be used to support claims or

defenses. 

(A) Duty to Notify. A party seeking discovery of computer-based information shall

notify the opposing party immediately, but no later than the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference of

that fact and identify as clearly as possible the categories of information which may be sought.

(B) Duty to Meet and Confer. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the following

matters during the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference:

(i) Computer-based information (in general).

Counsel shall attempt to agree on steps the parties will take to segregate and preserve

computer-based information in order to avoid accusations of spoilation; 

(ii) E-mail information. Counsel shall attempt to agree as to the scope of e-mail

discovery and attempt to agree upon an e-mail search protocol. This should include an agreement

regarding inadvertent production of privileged e-mail messages.

Case 1:04-cv-06405-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 08/28/07 Page 4 of 6
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

 Motions to compel discovery, amend, remand, etc. 2

 Motions for summary adjudication or to dismiss, strike, etc. 3

5

(iii) Deleted information. Counsel shall confer and attempt to agree whether or

not restoration of deleted information may be necessary, the extent to which restoration of

deleted information is needed, and who will bear the costs of restoration; and

(iv) Back-up data. counsel shall attempt to agree whether or not back-up data may

be necessary, the extent to which backup data is needed and who will bear the cost of obtaining

back-up data.

The Joint Scheduling Report Shall summarize the parties conference relating to discovery

of electronic data. 

8. Dates agreed to by all counsel for:

(a) Filing non-dispositive and dispositive pre-trial motions with the 2 3

understanding that motions (except motions in limine or other trial motions) will

not be entertained after the agreed upon date. (No later than 10 weeks prior to the

proposed Pre-Trial Conference date.)

(b) Pre-Trial Conference date. (No later than 45 days prior to the proposed trial

date.)

(c) Trial date.

All of these dates should be considered firm dates. Dates should be set to allow the court

to decide any matters under submission before the Pre-Trial Conference is set.

9. At the conference referred to above, counsel are encouraged to discuss settlement, and

the Court will expect a statement in the Joint Scheduling Report as to the possibility of 

settlement. Counsel shall indicate when they feel a settlement conference is desired, i.e., before

further discovery, after discovery, after pre-trial motions, etc.

10. A statement as to whether the case is a jury or non-jury case. If the parties disagree as

to whether a jury trial has been timely demanded or whether one is available on some or all of the

claims, the statement shall include a summary of each party's position. 

Case 1:04-cv-06405-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 08/28/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

11. An estimate of the number of trial days required. When counsel cannot agree, each

party shall give his or her best estimate. In estimating the number of trial days counsel should

keep in mind that this court is normally able to devote the entire day to trial. 

12. Because the District Judges' dockets are extremely crowded, the parties should

consider and address the issue of whether they are willing to consent to the jurisdiction of a U.S.

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). All non-dispositive motions are routinely

heard by the Magistrate Judge whether or not the parties consent.

13. Whether either party requests bifurcation or phasing of trial or has any other

suggestion for shortening or expediting discovery, pre-trial motions or trial.

14. Whether this matter is related to any matter pending in this court or any other court,

including any bankruptcy court.

15. Joint Scheduling Reports are to be e-mailed, in WordPerfect or Word format, to

dlborders@caed.uscourts.gov.

SHOULD COUNSEL OR A PARTY APPEARING PRO SE FAIL TO APPEAR AT 

THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, OR FAIL TO COMPLY WITH

THE DIRECTIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE, AN EX PARTE HEARING MAY BE

HELD AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL, DEFAULT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE

JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED, OR SANCTIONS, INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF

COURT, MAY BE IMPOSED AND/OR ORDERED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06405-AWI-SAB Document 144 Filed 08/28/07 Page 6 of 6