Opinion
1:12-cv-00849-LJO-GSA
04-25-2013
ELIZABETH MCKENNA, Plaintiff, v. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, ET AL. Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER, IN
PART
(Document 35)
On March 19, 2013, Plaintiff Elizabeth McKenna ("Plaintiff") filed a motion to extend dates in the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 35). Defendant The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. ("Defendant") filed an Opposition on April 5, 2013. (Doc. 37). The Court held a hearing on the motion on April 19, 2013.
The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's instant motion IN PART and extends the discovery cut-off with regard to specific discovery, in accordance with the parties' Stipulation filed on April 24, 2013. (Doc. 40). This additional, limited discovery will be conducted according to the stipulated terms and shall be completed no later than May 24, 2013. (Doc. 40). Further, the parties will comply with all other discovery-related measures identified in the Stipulation, including conducting a telephonic meet-and-confer conference on April 29, 2013. (Doc. 40).
The Court reminds the parties that the original deadline for filing motions to compel expired on the discovery cut-off date of March 22, 2013. However, in accordance with the parties' Stipulation, the Court will extend the deadline for filing motions to compel to May 3, 2013. (Doc. 40). The Court will not entertain motions to compel past that date. Any motions to compel will be heard on May 10, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10, with counsel personally present. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rule 251(a), (b) and (c), any motion to compel must be accompanied by a Joint Statement regarding the discovery disagreement at issue. Failure to timely file the Joint Statement will result in the removal of the motion hearing from the Court's calendar.
At the hearing on the instant motion, the Court had limited motions to compel to discovery provided after the March 22, 2013 discovery cut-off, the QME deposition and any noncompliance with the parties' stipulation regarding completion of discovery that was pending prior to the non-expert discovery cut-off. Upon further consideration, the Court is willing to amend its order, and to adopt the parties' Stipulation, given that the parties have demonstrated a willingness to work together to get pending discovery completed.
Finally, as agreed upon in the parties' Stipulation, and except as outlined above, all deadlines, dates and other terms specified in the Scheduling Order issued on September 26, 2012, remain in full force and effect. (Doc. 40). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE