Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01333-BTM-POR

Document 4

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Brictson, Esq., contacted chambers on behalf of Plaintiff, and Eric Schwettmann, Esq., contacted 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 // chambers on behalf of Defendants. The parties request the Early Neutral Evaluation conference be rescheduled due to a conflict for Plaintiff's counsel. By joint request of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Early Neutral Evaluation conference scheduled for September 3, 2008, shall be held telephonically, with attorneys only, on September 18, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange and initiate the conference call. On August 1, 2008, the Court issued an Order scheduling an Early Neutral Evaluation conference in this matter for September 3, 2008. On August 25, 2008, counsel for the parties jointly contacted chambers to request the Early Neutral Evaluation conference be rescheduled. Timothy v. KSL DC MANAGEMENT LLC, DBA HOTEL DEL CORONADO; AND DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendant. NELIA MILLS, Plaintiff, ORDER RESCHEDULING EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil No. 08cv1333-BTM (POR)

-1-

08cv1333-BTM (POR)

Case 3:08-cv-01333-BTM-POR

Document 4

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3

At the telephonic Early Neutral Evaluation conference on September 18, 2008, counsel shall be prepared to discuss the claims and defenses in the case, and shall also be prepared to discuss the following matters:

4 5 6 7 8 9 the Rule 26(f) conference; and, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2cc: LOUISA S PORTER United States Magistrate Judge The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz All parties DATED: August 27, 2008 The Court will issue an order following the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference addressing these issues and setting dates as appropriate. There are no briefs or statements required to be lodged or filed prior to the Early Neutral Evaluation conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2. 3. 1. Any anticipated objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(E) to the initial disclosure provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A-D); The scheduling of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference; The date of initial disclosure and the date for lodging the discovery plan following

08cv1333-BTM (POR)