Driver v. Pape Kenworth ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGER DRIVER, 2:17-cv-01968-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 PAPÉ TRUCKS, INC., ET AL., 15 Defendant 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Roger Driver, filed this diversity action against defendant Pape Trucks, Inc. for 19 negligence. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant’s motion to reopen expert discovery, filed on June 15, 20 2023, is presently pending before this court and is set for a hearing on July 25, 2023. (ECF No. 21 87.) 22 Under Local Rule 230(c), any opposition to this motion was to be filed no later than June 23 29, 2023. L.R. 230(c). That date has passed, and no opposition was received. However, as the 24 court requires input from the parties on whether to reopen expert discovery, the court hereby 25 orders that all non-moving parties1 inform the court of their position on defendant’s motion 26 27 1 Jomar Investments, Inc (third-party defendant) and Accident Fund Insurance Company of 28 America (plaintiff-in-intervention) are also parties to this case. 1 || within fourteen days of this order.! Defendant shall file a reply brief within ten days of the non- 2 || moving parties’ filing. 3 In the forthcoming briefing, the parties shall address the following: 1) whether trial is 4 | imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be 5 || prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines 6 || established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the 7 || time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead 8 | to relevant evidence. City of Pomona v. SQM N.A. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017) 9 || (listing factors which the court must consider in deciding motion to amend a scheduling order to 10 || reopen discovery). Apart from the question of diligence, defendant’s motion fails to address any 11 | of these factors. (See ECF No. 87.) 12 ORDER 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 14 1. The July 25, 2023 hearing on defendant’s motion is vacated; 15 2. Within fourteen days of this order, non-moving parties shall respond to defendant’s 16 motion by informing the court of their position(s) on the motion; and 17 3. Within ten days of non-moving parties’ response, defendant shall submit a reply brief. 18 || Dated: July 17, 2023 " Aectl Aharon 20 KENDALL J. NE roge.1968 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28