Opinion
No. 2:05-cv-2397-GEB-DAD.
June 7, 2006
ORDER
On May 17, 2006, the parties filed a Stipulation in which defense counsel mistakenly concludes that each time a party decides to substitute counsel, the Rule 16 scheduling order must be amended to accommodate the schedule of new counsel. Defendant and its new attorney should have been mindful of the deadlines prescribed in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order before change of counsel occurred. See Matrix Motor Co., Inc. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 676 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (imputing responsibility of being aware of Rule 16 scheduling order dates to the plaintiff as well as counsel); cf. Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 1998) (stating "litigants have an unflagging duty to comply with clearly communicated case-management orders").
Nevertheless, since the parties stipulate to a modification of the expert disclosure deadlines, and these modifications can be made without adversely affecting the orderly manner in which the action has been scheduled, the good cause issue will not be reached. But additional modifications result from the parties' proposal, as stated below.
The Rule 16 Scheduling Order filed February 13, 2006, is modified as follows:
(1) discovery shall be completed by January 19, 2007;
(2) each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)'s initial expert witness disclosure and report requirements on or before September 8, 2006, and with the rebuttal expert disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before October 6, 2006;
(3) the last hearing date for motions shall be March 19, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.; and
(4) the Final Pretrial Conference is set for May 21, 2007, at 11:00 a.m.
Because of closeness of the Final Pretrial Conference to the trial commencement date, necessitated by the parties' requested modifications to the Rule 16 Order, no settlement conference will be scheduled in this action. The trial date remains unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.