Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00822-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

November 28, 2016.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Lisa Kantor appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Martin Rosen and Adam Rucker appeared on behalf of Defendant.

III. Magistrate Judge Consent: Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the newly adopted policy of the Fresno Division of 

the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set 

VICKI YOUNG,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SUN LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00822 LJO JLT

FURTHER SCHEDULING ORDER

Discovery Deadline: 4/14/2017

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 4/21/2017

Hearing: 5/19/2017 

Merits Briefs:

Briefs: 8/1/2017

Responsive Briefs: 8/29/20017

Trial: 9/26/2017, Ctrm 4

Case 1:16-cv-00822-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 4
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

before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older 

civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset to a 

continued date.

The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 

of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize 

criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge 

may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States 

Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 

The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United 

States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the 

Local Rules, Appendix A, such reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance 

notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern 

District of California. 

Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 

conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel 

SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating 

whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

IV. Discovery 

The parties disagree as to the extent of discovery allowed. Without deciding this issue, the 

parties are ordered to complete all discovery on or before April 14, 2017.

V. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

A. Non-dispositive motions

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any motions to augment the record, shall be 

filed no later than April 21, 2017, and heard on or before May 19, 2017. Non-dispositive motions are 

heard before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge at the United States 

Courthouse in Bakersfield, California.

No written motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned Magistrate Judge. 

Case 1:16-cv-00822-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to 

resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the moving party 

promptly shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate Judge. It shall be 

the obligation of the moving party to arrange and originate the conference call to the court. To 

schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan 

Hall at (661) 326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. Counsel must comply with Local 

Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice and 

dropped from calendar. 

In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant applications for an order 

shortening time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). However, if counsel does not obtain an order 

shortening time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. Counsel may appear and 

argue non-dispositive motions via CourtCall.

VI. Merits briefing

The parties SHALL file their briefs on the merits simultaneously no later than August 1, 2017

and may file a responsive brief no later than August 29, 2017. 

VII. Trial

September 26, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, 

United States District Court Judge.

A. This is oral argument on the merits briefs only.

B. Counsels’ attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California, Rule 285.

VIII. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any 

amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to efficiently 

handle its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided 

in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California.

Case 1:16-cv-00822-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

IX. Effect of this Order

This order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the schedule most suitable 

to dispose of this case. If the parties determine that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

they must notify the court immediately so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by 

subsequent status conference.

The dates set in this Order are firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause 

even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained 

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by evidence establishing good cause for 

granting the relief requested. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of 

sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00822-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 4