Da Silva v. Morgan

Full title: ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI C. MORGAN, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Feb 6, 2023

2:21-cv-1208-KJM-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2023)

Opinion

2:21-cv-1208-KJM-CKD PS

02-06-2023

ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI C. MORGAN, Defendant.

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant has answered the complaint. (ECF No. 47.) Within 30 days from the date of this order, the parties shall meet, in person or by telephone, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Within 7 days after the parties' Rule 26 meeting, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report¹for the purpose of the court's entry of a pretrial scheduling order. The joint status report shall address the relevant portions of Local Rule 240(a). The parties may request a hearing before the Magistrate Judge or may request that the pretrial scheduling order issue without a hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

1 If the parties are unable to file a joint status report, they may file separate status reports.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Within 30 days from the date of this order, the parties shall meet, in person or by telephone, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

2. Within 7 days after the parties' Rule 26 discussion, the parties shall file a joint status report and request for hearing before the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of entry of a pretrial scheduling order. The report shall address the following matters:

a. Service of process;

b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;

d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling;

f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses;

g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;

h. Special procedures, if any;

i. Estimated trial time;

j. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the simplicity or complexity of the proceedings;

k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy;

l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled before another Magistrate Judge;

m. The parties' positions with respect to Voluntary Dispute Resolution (VDRP) under Local Rule 271(d); and

n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.