Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02461/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02461-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 06CV2461 L (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY DAUBNER

Plaintiff,

v.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., aka SMITH &

NEPHEW RICHARDS, INC.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv2461 L (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AMENDED JOINT MOTION TO

AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

***

FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING

ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY

AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL

PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. No. 15]

On May 8, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the February 16, 2007

Scheduling Order. [Doc. No. 13.] The Court denied that motion because the parties did not set

forth any good cause to continue the dates. [Doc. No. 14.] The Court said the parties could re-file

the motion, but would have to set forth good cause and inform the Court of the specific discovery

they have undertaken thus far. The parties then filed this amended joint motion to amend the

Scheduling Order. [Doc. No. 15.] 

The Court finds that the parties’ submitted good cause–that plaintiff is in the process of

retaining a new expert and defendant needs time to conduct an inspection before retaining an

expert–is unacceptable to continue the requested dates for ten weeks. Further, the parties did not

inform the Court of the specific discovery they have done. 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02461-L-NLS Document 16 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 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

2 06CV2461 L (NLS)

Having considered the parties’ joint motion, the Court GRANTS the joint motion IN

PART and continues the requested dates for approximately 30 days. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Any future requests to continue dates in the Scheduling Order will require (1) the

personal appearance of the parties’ counsel in this Court; (2) a sufficient showing of good cause;

and (3) a detailed list of the discovery the parties have undertaken.

2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by June 15, 2007. 

The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to

Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. 

The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be on or before June 29, 2007. The written

designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable

summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal

rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony.

3. On or before August 16, 2007, each party shall comply with the disclosure

provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure

requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or

whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony. 

4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal

evidence under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)on or before September 11, 2007.

5. All discovery, including experts, shall be completed by all parties on or before

November 16, 2007. "Completed" means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient

period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date,

taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all

discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). All discovery motions shall be filed

within 30 days after counsel have met and conferred and reached an impasse with regard to any

particular discovery issue, but in no event shall discovery motions be filed more than 30 days after

Case 3:06-cv-02461-L-NLS Document 16 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 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

3 06CV2461 L (NLS)

the close of discovery.

6. All other pretrial motions must be filed on or before December 14, 2007. Please be

advised that counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of

the judge who will hear the motion. Be further advised that the period of time between the date

you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please

plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not

being heard.

7. All non-conflicting provisions in the Court’s February 16, 2007 Scheduling Order

shall remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02461-L-NLS Document 16 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 3