Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06456/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06456-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

AMENDED JOINT SCHEDULING ORDER

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

4842-0669-5936.1 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, a

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MADERA QUALITY NUT, LLC,

Defendant.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:04 -cv-06456 SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE NEW

DEADLINE DATES

DATE: March 2, 2006 

TIME: 10:00 a.m.

COURTROOM: #7 (6th floor)

The Hon. Sandra M. Snyder

U.S. Magistrate Judge

On February 6, 2006, all counsel (Gordon M. Park and Mohammed S. Mandegary,

attorneys for Plaintiff AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”), Arturo Gonzalez and Jeffrey P.

Davis, attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Madera Quality Nut, LLC. (“MQN”), and

Julian J. Pardini, attorney for Counterdefendant AMCO) participated in a conference call with the

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder to discuss the potential continuance of the trial date and all related

pretrial dates. After all counsel were heard, Judge Snyder agreed that a continuance of the trial

date was appropriate and set trial for October 23, 2006. Judge Snyder requested the parties meet

and confer regarding the other pretrial dates and submit the results of this process to the Court.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:04-cv-06456-SMS Document 92 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 4
AMENDED JOINT SCHEDULING ORDER

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

4842-0669-5936.1 -2-

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), a meeting was held on March 2, 2006

via telephone and was attended by all counsel identified above except Mr. Park. Counsel agreed to

the following to be submitted to the Court in the form of an Amended Joint Scheduling Report:

1. Each party shall be limited to conducting a maximum of 25 depositions under Rule

30 and/or Rule 31. All other applicable limitations are governed by F.R.Civ.P. 30 and 31. This

limitation takes into account that each of the parties has already conducted a number of

depositions, the amount of which will be deducted from the maximum of 25 allowed.

2. At this time, the parties agree that discovery need not be conducted in phases or be

limited to or focused upon particular subjects.

3. The parties have agreed to set the discovery cut-off date for June 12, 2006.

4. The proposed date for disclosure of expert witnesses pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.

26(a)(2) is May 8, 2006 (at least 90 days before trial date per 26(a)(2)(C).

5. Supplemental disclosure of witnesses under Rule 26(e) is due May 29, 2006.

6. The parties will not be allowed to join additional parties or further amend the

pleadings. 

7. All potentially dispositive motions must be filed by July 10, 2006. 

8. All potentially non-dispositive motions must be filed by June 19, 2006. 

9. Final lists of witnesses and exhibits under Rule 26(a)(3) should be due: July 24,

2006. The parties have agreed to a mutual exchange of final lists at the time of the pretrial

conference.

10. Parties should have 14 days after service of final lists of witnesses and exhibits to

list objections under F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3). 

11. Dates agreed to by all counsel for:

(a) Hearing on pending discovery motions March 31, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.

(b) Hearing on motion for summary judgment May 4, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. 

(c) Filing pre-trial motions September 15, 2006

(d) Pre-Trial Conference: August 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.

(e) Trial: October 23, 2006 at 9:00a.m.

Case 1:04-cv-06456-SMS Document 92 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 4
AMENDED JOINT SCHEDULING ORDER

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

4842-0669-5936.1 -3-

11.. A statement concerning possibility of settlement.

In the interest of saving attorneys fees and expenses, the parties agree that a Voluntary

Settlement Conference should occur before the Pre-Trial Conference. To this end, the parties have

scheduled. a Voluntary Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on

August 8, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. The parties further stipulate that any subsequent settlement

conference in this matter may be handled by Judge O'Neill.

13. A statement as to whether the case is a jury or non-jury case.

The parties agree this case requires a court judgment on the declaratory relief itself with a

fact-finding jury to resolve all factual issues in dispute.

14. An estimate of the number of trial days required.

The parties expect that a jury trial would likely take 15-20 trial days.

15. Whether either party requests bifurcation of trial or has any other suggestion

for shortening trial.

At this time, the parties agree that bifurcation is appropriate on the claim for punitive

damages. Given the circumstances of the Counterclaim against AMCO, AMCO further believes

further that the declaratory relief and breach of contract causes of action should be tried before the

cause of action in the Counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing. 

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

court.

This matter is not related to any other matter pending in this court or any other court that

would warrant consolidation.

Dated: April 19, 2006 MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE

& CARRUTH, LLP

By: /s/ Gordon M. Park 

Gordon M. Park

 Mohammed S. Mandegary

Attorneys for Plaintiff AMCO Insurance

Company, a corporation

Case 1:04-cv-06456-SMS Document 92 Filed 05/10/06 Page 3 of 4
AMENDED JOINT SCHEDULING ORDER

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

4842-0669-5936.1 -4-

Dated: April 19, 2006 DOWLING, ARRON & KEELER

By: /s/ Jeffrey P. Davis 

Jeffrey P. Davis

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant

MADERA QUALITY NUT, INC.

Dated: April 18, 2006 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. Gonzalez 

Arturo J. Gonzalez

Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant 

MADERA QUALITY NUT, INC. and

Defendants RED RIVER FOODS, INC.,

UNIVERSAL LEAF TOBACCO CO., INC.

and UNIVERSAL CORPORATION

Dated: April 14, 2006 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH

By: /s/ Julian J. Pardini 

 Julian J. Pardini

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY

O R D E R

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06456-SMS Document 92 Filed 05/10/06 Page 4 of 4