Opinion
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for hearing on June 8, 2015, is vacated since the parties' "Further Joint Status Report" filed on May 22, 2015 ("JSR") indicates the following Order should issue.
DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS
Since Plaintiffs have not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1-100 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed September 4, 2014, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if justification for "Doe" defendant allegations not provided Doe defendants would be dismissed).
SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT
Plaintiffs state in the JSR:
The conservator of Plaintiff Harold Bennett is his daughter, Dorothy Picking. Dorothy Picking is represented by Larry R. Cox of The Law Offices of Young Wooldridge, LLP in Bakersfield, CA for purposes of the conservatorship proceedings related to Harold Bennett. Plaintiff's attorneys have been in steady contact with attorney Larry Cox regarding the substitution. Ms. Picking has agreed to be substituted as the real party in interest in this action in her capacity as conservator of Harold Bennett pursuant to section 2463 of the California Probate Code. Ms. Picking is represented by Craig A. Miller and Patrick A. Calhoon at the Law Offices of Craig A. Miller in her capacity as the conservator of Harold Bennett in connection with this action.
Defendant State Farm does not oppose the substitution of Dorothy Picking, conservator of Harold Bennett, as the real party in interest in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff will file a joint motion and stipulation of the parties to substitute Dorothy Picking as plaintiff in her capacity as conservator of Harold Bennett. Plaintiff is endeavoring to file this motion during the week of May 25, 2015 to May 29, 2015.
With respect to Plaintiff Dorothy Bennett, Plaintiffs anticipate that Dorothy Picking will continue the action as the successor in interest to her mother pursuant to section 377.11 of the California Probate Code. This can also be accomplished through a joint motion and stipulation. Plaintiff is endeavoring to file the necessary affidavit and Joint Motion and Stipulation of the parties with this Court during the week of May 25, 2015 to May 29, 2015.
(JSR 2:9-26, ECF No. 18.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs have until June 1, 2015, to file a joint motion and stipulation concerning the referenced substitution of parties, after which time no further service, joinder of parties, or amendments to the pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause shown.
ADDED PARTY'S OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK AMENDMENT OF THIS ORDER
If Plaintiffs substitute a party pursuant to the leave given above, a copy of this Order shall be served on that party concurrently with the service of process.
The newly added party has 30 days after said service within which to file a "Notice of Proposed Modification of Status Order." Although a newly-joined party's proposed modification filed within this thirty day period will not have to meet the good cause standard, no further amendments will be permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause shown.
DISCOVERY
All discovery shall be completed by April 20, 2016. "Completed" means all discovery shall be conducted so that any dispute relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with on or before the prescribed "completion" date.
Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)'s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or before December 16, 2015, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) on or before January 13, 2016.
MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE
The last hearing date for a motion is June 20, 2016, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any motion shall be briefed as prescribed in Local Rule 230.
The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied.
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The final pretrial conference is scheduled to commence at 2:30 p.m., on August 15, 2016. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who WILL TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial conference. In addition, all persons representing themselves and appearing in propria persona must attend the pretrial conference.
The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial conference. The joint pretrial statement shall address the applicable portions of Local Rule 281(b), and shall set forth each theory of liability ("claim") and affirmative defense which remains to be tried, and the ultimate facts on which each claim/defense is based. Furthermore, each party shall estimate the length of trial. The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement to prepare its final pretrial order and could issue the final pretrial order without holding the scheduled final pretrial conference. See Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999) ("There is no requirement that the court hold a pretrial conference.").
Final pretrial procedures are "critical for promoting efficiency and conserving judicial resources by identifying the real issues prior to trial, thereby saving time and expense for everyone.'" Friedman & Friedman, Ltd. v. Tim McCandless, Inc., 606 F.3d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Advisory Committee Note (1983 Amendment to subdivision (c)). "Toward that end, Rule 16 directs courts to use pretrial conferences to weed out unmeritorious claims and defenses before trial begins." Smith v. Gulf Oil Co., 995 F.2d 638, 642 (6th Cir. 1993). The parties are therefore provided notice that a claim or affirmative defense may be dismissed sua sponte if it is not shown to be triable in the joint final pretrial statement. Cf. Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662 F.2d 641, 645 (9th Cir. 1981) (indicating that a party shall be provided notice and an opportunity to respond with facts sufficient to justify having a claim or affirmative defense proceed to trial); Portsmouth Square, Inc. v. S'holders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating "the district court has... authority to grant summary judgment sua sponte in the context of a final pretrial conference").
If feasible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with WordPerfect to: geborders@caed.uscourts.gov.
TRIAL SETTING
Trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on November 1, 2016.
VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM ("VDRP")
Since the parties state in the JSR that they "agree to participate in early neutral evaluation through VDRP[, ]" this matter is referred to VDRP. (JSR 5:20-21.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.