Buenviaje

Buenviaje v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 25, 20243:23-cv-01938California3,972 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 PAUL BUENVIAJE, Case No.: 23-cv-1938-W-MMP

14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER v.

[ECF No. 19] WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. et al.,

18 Defendant. 19 Before the Court is the parties’ second Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (“Second Joint Motion”). [ECF No. 19.] Plaintiff requests the Court modify the Scheduling Order to allow Plaintiff to designate a psychiatrist who treated Plaintiff on July 25, 2024— after the expert designation deadline—as a non-retained expert. [ECF No. 19-1 at 5.] Defendant opposes the request. [Id. at 13–16.] On September 13, 2024, the Court held a conference with counsel for both parties in which it expressed concerns regarding the timing of Plaintiff’s treatment as well as his diligence in complying with the expert designation deadline. [ECF No. 21.] Following the conference, the Court permitted supplemental briefing from both parties. [ECF Nos. 22, 23.] Having…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.