Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01533/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01533-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332ds Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

14cv1533-CAB (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUMP SAN DIEGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANAY KRUGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14cv1533-CAB (BLM)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING JOINT MOTION TO 

CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION CONFERENCE 

[ECF No. 31]

(2) FINDING EARLY NEUTRAL

EVALUATION CONFERENCE 

INAPPROPRIATE 

AND

(3) RESETTING TELEPHONIC CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On April 6, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion asking the Court to continue the Early 

Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) set for May 8, 2017 and related deadlines. ECF No. 31. 

In support, the parties state that both attorneys representing Defendant Kruger will participate 

Case 3:14-cv-01533-CAB-BLM Document 32 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

14cv1533-CAB (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

in a civil trial in Orange County, which is scheduled to commence on May 1, 2017, and is 

expected to last two weeks. Id. at 2; see also id. at 4, Declaration of Oliver B. Dreger (“Dreger 

Decl.”). The parties state that the attorneys would not be able to participate in the ENE, and

ask the Court to continue the ENE and all related deadlines for three weeks. Id. at 2.

Due to defense counsel’s scheduling conflict, the Court finds it inappropriate to convene 

an ENE at this time. See CivLR 16.1(c)(1) (explaining that “[t]he judicial officer will hold such 

conferences as he or she deems appropriate”). Instead, the Court issues the following orders:

The Court will hold a telephonic, attorneys-only Case Management Conference on 

April 28, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. In preparation for this conference, the parties must

a. Meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than April 17, 

2017.

b. File a Joint Discovery Plan on the CM/ECF system no later than April 21, 

2017. Agreements made in the Joint Discovery Plan will be treated as binding stipulations that 

are effectively incorporated into the Court’s Case Management Order. The Joint Discovery Plan 

must be one document and must address each item identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). In 

addition, the discovery plan must include:

i. Service: A statement as to whether any parties remain to be served 

and, if so, a proposed deadline for service;

ii. Amendment of Pleadings: The extent to which parties, claims, or 

defenses are expected to be added or dismissed and a proposed deadline for amending the 

pleadings;

iii. Protective Order: Whether a protective order is contemplated to 

cover the exchange of confidential information and, if so, the date by which the proposed order

Case 3:14-cv-01533-CAB-BLM Document 32 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

14cv1533-CAB (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

will be submitted to the Court;

iv. Privilege: The procedure the parties plan to use regarding claims 

of privilege and whether an order pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502 will be sought;

v. Evidence Preservation: Whether the parties have discussed issues 

related to the preservation of relevant evidence and if there are areas of disagreement, how the 

parties are resolving them; 

vi. Electronic Discovery: In addition to the requirements set forth in 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(C), the parties must describe their agreements regarding methodologies 

for locating and producing electronically stored information and the production of metadata, and 

must identify any issues or agreements regarding electronically stored information that may not 

be reasonably accessible (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B));

vii. Discovery: In addition to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(f)(3)(B), the parties must describe the discovery taken to date (if any), any proposed 

limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, and any identified discovery disputes;

viii. Related Cases: Any related cases or proceedings pending before

another judge of this court, or before another court or administrative body;

ix. Scheduling: Proposed dates for fact discovery cutoff, expert 

designations and disclosures, expert discovery cutoff, filing of dispositive motions, filing class 

certification motion (if class is alleged), pretrial conference and trial;

x. Professional Conduct: Whether all attorneys of record for the 

parties have reviewed Civil Local Rule 83.4 on Professionalism; and

xi. Miscellaneous: Such other matters as may facilitate the just, 

speedy and inexpensive disposition of this matter.

Case 3:14-cv-01533-CAB-BLM Document 32 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

14cv1533-CAB (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

c. The parties’ deadline to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 

26(a)(1)(A-D) remains unchanged and is set for May 1, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/7/2017

Case 3:14-cv-01533-CAB-BLM Document 32 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4