Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Defendant
Eric Edward Juell
Plaintiff
David Williams
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ERIC EDWARD JUELL,

NO. CIV S-05-0378 FCD/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

and DAVID WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 9, 2006, plaintiff Eric Juell and defendant Forest

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. And David Williams (collectively

“defendants”) submitted a Stipulated Application for an Order

Shortening Time for hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Modify the

Pretrial Scheduling Order for Limited Discovery and on

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Examination of plaintiff pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 35.

The court has reviewed the Stipulated Application for an

Order Shortening Time, the Declaration of Lizbeth V. West filed

in support thereof, the Motion to Modify the Pretrial Scheduling 

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 50 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 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

1 While the court acknowledges that plaintiff has not

filed a response to defendants’ Motion to Modify the Pretrial

Scheduling Order, due to scheduling conflicts, the court will not

be available to hold a hearing or issue a decision on this matter

until late July 2006. Further, the underlying record in this

case establishes good cause for modification. 

2

Order for limited discovery, and all exhibits attached thereto. 

Further, the court has reviewed the record in this matter,

specifically the court’s previous grant of plaintiff’s motion to

modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order to allow for designation of

four healthcare experts and an economic expert. Defendants’

current motion to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order to compel

medical examination of plaintiff is a result of plaintiff’s

designation of medical experts and defendants’ subsequent

designation of a rebuttal expert. Based upon consideration of

the underlying materials and the procedural facts of this case,

the court finds that defendants have demonstrated good cause for

modification of the Pretrial Scheduling Order for the purposes of

limited discovery.1 Therefore, defendants Motion to Modify the

Pretrial Scheduling Order is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Pretrial

Scheduling Order is modified to allow defendants to notice and

file a motion to compel examination of plaintiff pursuant to Rule

35 before the Magistrate Judge and to conduct any discovery

ordered as a result thereof. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 19, 2006

 

 /s/Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 50 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2