Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00797/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00797-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHENZHENSHI HAITIECHENG 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CO., 

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

REARDEN LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00797-JST 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Court has reviewed the parties' Joint Case Management Statement, ECF No. 56, which 

violates the Court's Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents 

of Joint Case Management Statement. That order requires the parties to provide, inter alia, 

"proposed dates for designation of experts, discovery cutoff, hearing of dispositive motions, 

pretrial conference and trial." See also Civil L.R. 16-9(a).

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED, not later than December 15, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., to 

file either a jointly proposed supplemental Joint Case Management Statement or competing 

individual supplemental Case Management Statements, setting forth a complete proposed 

schedule. The proposed schedule must include, at a minimum, the following: a deadline to amend 

the pleadings (if amendments there will be); a fact discovery cut-off; an expert disclosure 

deadline; an expert rebuttal deadline; an expert discovery cut-off; a dispositive motion filing date 

that is at least three-and-a-half months before trial; a pretrial conference date that is 24 days before 

the proposed trial date; and a trial date, which will be a Monday (unless the day before the trial 

date is Monday court holiday).1 

 

1

The parties are free to continue to argue, as they do in the Joint Case Management Statement, 

that some of these deadlines have already passed, but it does not appear that any deadlines were 

previously set. 

Case 3:15-cv-00797-JST Document 57 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If the parties make competing proposals, they should bear in mind that the Court endeavors 

to decide administrative matters, such as a case schedule, by using baseball arbitration. See Sage 

Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc., No. 12-CV-6441-JST, 2014 WL 1379282, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 8, 2014). The parties should tailor their proposals accordingly. 

The Court will not set a trial in this case for April 2016, as one party currently proposes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00797-JST Document 57 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 2