Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02397/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02397-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

DAINA GLASSON, )

) 2:05-cv-2397-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

RES-CARE CALIFORNIA, INC., )

d/b/a RCCA SERVICES, )

)

Defendant. ) 

)

On May 17, 2006, the parties filed a Stipulation in which

defense counsel mistakenly concludes that each time a party decides

to substitute counsel, the Rule 16 scheduling order must be amended

to accommodate the schedule of new counsel. Defendant and its new

attorney should have been mindful of the deadlines prescribed in

the Rule 16 Scheduling Order before change of counsel occurred. 

See Matrix Motor Co., Inc. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218

F.R.D. 667, 676 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (imputing responsibility of being

aware of Rule 16 scheduling order dates to the plaintiff as well as

counsel); cf. Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir.

1998) (stating “litigants have an unflagging duty to comply with

clearly communicated case-management orders”). 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02397-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 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

Because of closeness of the Final Pretrial Conference to 1

the trial commencement date, necessitated by the parties’ requested

modifications to the Rule 16 Order, no settlement conference will

be scheduled in this action. The trial date remains unchanged.

2

Nevertheless, since the parties stipulate to a

modification of the expert disclosure deadlines, and these

modifications can be made without adversely affecting the orderly

manner in which the action has been scheduled, the good cause issue

will not be reached. But additional modifications result from the

parties’ proposal, as stated below.

The Rule 16 Scheduling Order filed February 13, 2006, is

modified as follows:

(1) discovery shall be completed by January 19, 2007; 

(2) each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report

requirements on or before September 8, 2006, and with the rebuttal

expert disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before October 6,

2006;

(3) the last hearing date for motions shall be March 19,

2007, at 9:00 a.m.; and

(4) the Final Pretrial Conference is set for May 21, 2007,

at 11:00 a.m.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02397-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2