From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Botello v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Feb 18, 2010
C09-02121 HRL (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010)

Opinion


ZULEIMA BOTELLO, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, SONIA BURRUETE, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. No. C09-02121 HRL. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. February 18, 2010.

ORDER (1) DISMISSING DEFENDANT NISHINO AND (2) SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

The order that follows is based on the discussion at the February 18, 2010 Case Management Conference and the previously filed Joint Case Management Statement.

A. Dismissal of Defendant Alan Nishino

By the time of the Case Management Conference, plaintiff still had not served former Superintendent Alan Nishino with her complaint. Plaintiff agrees that he may be dismissed from the case at this time. Accordingly, the court dismisses defendant Alan Nishino without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

B. Case Management Schedule

The court adopts the parties' statement of disputed factual and legal issues as set forth in the Joint Case Management Statement. The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply.

The parties have agreed to mediation for purposes of ADR. However, if the case has not settled, the parties shall contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Trumbull well in advance of the Pretrial Conference to arrange a Settlement Conference to take place just prior to the Pretrial Conference.

The following schedule shall also apply to this case:

Any motions to compel fact discovery must be filed no later than seven days after the Fact Discovery Cutoff, and any motions to compel expert discovery must be filed no later than seven days after the Expert Discovery Cutoff. See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 26-2.

If either party has reason to believe that an opposing expert fails to meet the standards enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), that party shall send to the court a letter indicating the basis for the challenge and a copy of the challenged expert report by October 29, 2010. If necessary upon review, the court will set a hearing and briefing schedule to resolve the matter.

Furthermore, the parties shall comply with the court's "Standing Order re: Pretrial Preparation" with respect to the timing and content of the Joint Pretrial Statement and other pretrial submissions.

Parties may obtain copies of all of Judge Lloyd's standing orders from the clerk of the court, or from Judge Lloyd's page on the court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Botello v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Feb 18, 2010
C09-02121 HRL (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010)
Case details for

Botello v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

Case Details

Full title:ZULEIMA BOTELLO, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, SONIA…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Feb 18, 2010

Citations

C09-02121 HRL (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010)