From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodrigues v. UST Select, Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 19, 2023
2:23-cv-01406-JDP (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-01406-JDP

07-19-2023

ORLANDO RODRIGUES, Plaintiff, v. UST SELECT, INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER SETTING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. An initial scheduling conference is set for September 7, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The conference will be conducted remotely via Zoom.

The Zoom invitation will be distributed one week prior to the scheduling conference.

2. No later than fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference, the parties shall file status reports that address the following:

The parties are encouraged to file a joint status report.

a. the factual and legal contentions set forth in the parties' pleadings, briefly summarized;
b. possible joinder of additional parties;
c. expected amendment of pleadings and, if applicable, a proposed deadline for such amendment;
d. jurisdiction and venue;
e. anticipated motions and their scheduling;
f. a proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including deadlines for exchanging initial disclosures and for disclosing expert witnesses;
g. proposed cutoff dates for completing discovery and dispositive motions;
h. any proposed changes to the limits on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
i. whether the case is related to any other cases, including any bankruptcy cases;
j. whether an early settlement conference should be scheduled at the initial scheduling conference;
k. whether counsel will stipulate to the undersigned acting as the settlement judge and waive disqualification from so acting, or whether they prefer to have a different magistrate judge conduct a settlement; and l. any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.

The parties are advised that Judge Peterson generally requires that: (1) expert disclosures be completed before the close of fact discovery; (2) all motions to compel discovery be heard approximately thirty days before the close of discovery; and (3) all dispositive motions be heard within approximately ninety days of the discovery completion date. A final pretrial conference will be set after resolution of any dispositive motions or passage of the dispositive motion deadline. A trial date will be determined at the pretrial conference.

3. The parties are hereby notified that failure to obey federal or local rules, or any order of this court, “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court,” including dismissal. E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.

4. Counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 160.

5. Within seven days of the date of this order, the parties shall complete and file the Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rodrigues v. UST Select, Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 19, 2023
2:23-cv-01406-JDP (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2023)
Case details for

Rodrigues v. UST Select, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ORLANDO RODRIGUES, Plaintiff, v. UST SELECT, INC., et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 19, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-01406-JDP (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2023)