Heitkoetter

Heitkoetter v. Domm

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 11, 20241:22-cv-00368California2,717 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARKUS HEITKOETTER, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY

v. THE SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO FRCP 16(b)(4) KARL DOMM, (Doc. 123) Defendant.

16 Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Karl Domm’s motion to modify the scheduling order to continue discovery deadlines, the pretrial conference, and trial. (Doc. 123.) Plaintiffs Markus Heitkoetter and Rockwell Trading Services, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) filed their opposition but noted that they do not oppose a limited extension of non-expert discovery. (Doc. 127 at 3.) Defendant subsequently filed his reply. (Doc. 128.) Having considered the moving papers, along with the record in this case, the motion will be granted, in part, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). I. Brief Factual and Procedural Background In the interest of brevity, the Court highlights pertinent parts of the…

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.