Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00496/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00496-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martha Elizondo De Lopez
Plaintiff
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTHA ELIZONDO DE LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-00496-MCE-AC

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

After reviewing the parties’ Joint Status Report, the Court makes the following 

Pretrial Scheduling Order.

I. SERVICE OF PROCESS

All named Defendants have been served and no further service is permitted 

without leave of court, good cause having been shown.

II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS

No joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of 

court, good cause having been shown. 

III. JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. section 1332. Jurisdiction and venue 

are not contested. 

///

Case 2:16-cv-00496-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 7
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

IV. DISCOVERY

All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed by

November 14, 2016. In this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have 

been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to 

discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where 

discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel 

discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the 

local rules of this Court.

V. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES

All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the Court, and serve upon all other 

parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to 

tender at trial not later than January 14, 2017.

1

 The designation shall be accompanied 

by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall comply with 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

Within twenty (20) days after the designation of expert witnesses, any party may 

designate a supplemental list of expert witnesses who will express an opinion on a 

subject covered by an expert designated by an adverse party. The right to designate a 

supplemental expert for rebuttal purposes only shall apply to a party who has not 

previously disclosed an expert witness on the date set for expert witness disclosure by 

this Pretrial Scheduling Order. 

Failure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all 

likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial. An 

expert witness not appearing on the designation will not be permitted to testify unless the 

party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could not 

have been reasonably anticipated at the time the list was proffered; (b) that the Court 

 1 The discovery of experts will include whether any motions based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and/or Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) 

are anticipated.

Case 2:16-cv-00496-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 7
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

and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that 

the witness was promptly made available for deposition.

For purposes of this Pretrial Scheduling Order, an “expert” is any person who may 

be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, and 705 of the Federal Rules 

of Evidence, which include both “percipient experts” (persons who, because of their 

expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties or 

observations pertinent to the issues in the case) and “retained experts” (persons 

specifically designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of litigation). 

Each party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is percipient, retained, or 

both. It will be assumed that a party designating a retained expert has acquired the 

express permission of the witness to be so listed. Parties designating percipient experts 

must state in the designation who is responsible for arranging the deposition of such 

persons.

All experts designated are to be fully prepared at the time of designation to render 

an informed opinion, and give their bases for their opinion, so that they will be able to 

give full and complete testimony at any deposition taken by the opposing party. Experts 

will not be permitted to testify at the trial as to any information gathered or evaluated, or 

opinion formed, after deposition taken subsequent to designation. 

Counsel are instructed to complete all discovery of expert witnesses in a timely 

manner in order to comply with the Court’s deadline for filing dispositive motions. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:16-cv-00496-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 7
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

4

VI. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last day to hear dispositive motions shall be March 24, 2017. All papers 

should be filed in conformity with the Local Rules. However, with respect to Motions for 

Summary Judgment only, the parties shall comply with the following filing deadlines:

Motion for Summary 

Judgment

filed at least 8 weeks prior to hearing

Opposition and any 

cross-motion

filed at least 5 weeks prior to hearing

Reply and opposition to 

cross-motion

filed at least 3 weeks prior to hearing

Reply to cross-motion filed at least 1 week prior to hearing

Absent leave of the Court, all issues the parties wish to resolve on summary 

judgment must be raised together in one (1) motion or cross-motion. Should the parties 

wish to file additional motions for summary judgment, they must seek leave of the Court.

The parties are directed to the Court’s website for available hearing dates. 

(www.caed.uscourts.gov → select Judges → select Judge England → select Standard

Information)

All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely pretrial motions. When 

appropriate, failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, 

may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion 

summarily. With respect to motions for summary judgment, failure to comply with Local 

Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, may result in dismissal for failure to 

prosecute (or failure to defend) pursuant to this Court's inherent authority to control its 

docket and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Further, failure to timely oppose a 

summary judgment motion2 may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts 

///

 2 The Court urges any party that contemplates bringing a motion for summary judgment or who 

must oppose a motion for summary judgment to review Local Rule 260.

Case 2:16-cv-00496-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 7
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

5

the burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact 

remains for trial.

The Court places a page limit for points and authorities (exclusive of exhibits and 

other supporting documentation) of twenty (20) pages on all initial moving papers, twenty 

(20) pages on oppositions, and ten (10) pages for replies. All requests for page limit 

increases must be made in writing to the Court setting forth any and all reasons for any 

increase in page limit at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.

For the Court’s convenience, citations to the Supreme Court Lexis database 

should include parallel citations to the Westlaw database.

The parties are reminded that a motion in limine is a pretrial procedural device 

designed to address the admissibility of evidence. The Court will look with disfavor upon 

dispositional motions presented at the Final Pretrial Conference or at trial in the guise of 

motions in limine.

The parties are cautioned that failure to raise a dispositive legal issue that could 

have been tendered to the court by proper pretrial motion prior to the dispositive motion 

cut-off date may constitute waiver of such issue. 

VII. TRIAL SETTING

The parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than 

thirty (30) days after receiving this Court’s ruling(s) on the last filed dispositive motion. If 

the parties do not intend to file dispositive motions, the parties are ordered to file a Joint 

Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty (30) days after the close of discovery and 

the notice must include statements of intent to forgo the filing of dispositive motions. 

The parties are to set forth in their Notice of Trial Readiness, the appropriateness 

of special procedures, whether this case is related to any other case(s) on file in the 

Eastern District of California, the prospect for settlement, their estimated trial length, any 

request for a jury, and their available trial dates. After review of the parties’ Joint Notice 

of Trial Readiness, the Court will issue an order that sets forth a final pretrial conference 

and trial date. 

Case 2:16-cv-00496-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

VIII. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties may request a settlement conference if they feel it would lead to the 

possible resolution of the case. In the event an early settlement conference date is 

requested, the parties shall file said request jointly, in writing. The request must state 

whether the parties waive disqualification, pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), before a 

settlement judge can be assigned to the case. Absent the parties’ affirmatively 

requesting that the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge participate in the settlement

conference AND waiver, pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), a settlement judge will be 

randomly assigned to the case.

In the event a settlement conference is set by the Court, counsel are instructed to 

have a principal with full settlement authority present at the Settlement Conference or to 

be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. At least seven (7) calendar days 

before the settlement conference, counsel for each party shall submit to the chambers of 

the settlement judge a confidential Settlement Conference Statement. Such statements 

are neither to be filed with the Clerk nor served on opposing counsel. Each party, 

however, shall serve notice on all other parties that the statement has been submitted. If 

the settlement judge is not the trial judge, the Settlement Conference Statement shall not 

be disclosed to the trial judge.

IX. VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM

Pursuant to Local Rule 271 parties will need to lodge a stipulation and proposed 

order requesting referral to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program. 

X. MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Pretrial Scheduling Order shall not be modified except by leave of court 

upon a showing of good cause. Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation alone 

to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order does not constitute good cause. Except in 

extraordinary circumstances, unavailability of witnesses or counsel will not constitute 

good cause.

Case 2:16-cv-00496-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 07/14/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

XI. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

This Pretrial Scheduling Order will become final without further order of the Court 

unless objections are filed within seven (7) court days of service of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00496-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 07/14/16 Page 7 of 7