From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Airehart v. Hoovestol, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 13, 2008
NO. CIV S-07-1839 JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008)

Opinion

NO. CIV S-07-1839 JFM.

February 13, 2008


ORDER


Pursuant to the consent of the parties and the District Court's order of reassignment, upon review of the joint status reports, and good cause appearing, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Rule 26(a) disclosures have been made.

1. Expert witnesses shall be disclosed on or before May 15, 2008. Supplemental designation of expert witnesses shall occur on or before June 15, 2008.

2. Discovery, including any motions pertaining to discovery, shall be completed by August 25, 2008.

3. Pretrial motions shall be noticed so as to be heard no later than September 15, 2008.

4. The pretrial conference is set for Thursday, November 13, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in the chambers of the undersigned. Pretrial statements shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 16-281.

5. Trial of this matter is set for Tuesday, January 20, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in an 8th floor courtroom to be assigned. The parties may file trial briefs in accordance with Local Rule 16-285. The parties estimate the trial will take eight to twelve court days.

6. In preparation for trial, counsel are directed to premark and exchange exhibits fourteen days before trial. Any objections to exhibits shall be filed ten days before trial. All parties will appear and present their marked exhibits to Casey Schultz, Courtroom Clerk, at 8:30 a.m. on the date set for trial. Each exhibit not previously objected to will be received into evidence at the start of trial. Plaintiff will use numbers to mark its exhibits; defendant will use letters.

7. The parties have requested a settlement conference prior to the final pretrial conference. The parties stipulate to the trial judge determining whether he shall conduct a settlement conference or whether it shall be reassigned for the settlement conference to another judge or magistrate judge. The parties anticipate mediating the case upon completion of discovery. On or before September 1, 2008 the parties shall advise the court, by a joint letter, whether they wish a settlement conference set before the undersigned or before another judge who will be randomly assigned. The parties shall request a randomly assigned judge unless both parties agree that the settlement conference should be heard by the undersigned. If a randomly assigned judge is requested, nothing in the letter shall indicate the underlying choices made by counsel.


Summaries of

Airehart v. Hoovestol, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 13, 2008
NO. CIV S-07-1839 JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008)
Case details for

Airehart v. Hoovestol, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM AIREHART, Plaintiff, v. HOOVESTOL, INC., a Minnesota corporation…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 13, 2008

Citations

NO. CIV S-07-1839 JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008)