Martin

(PC) Ardds v. Martin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 22, 20232:20-cv-00133California3,389 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, No. 2:20-cv-0133 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. DISCOVERY AND KENNETH MARTIN, et al. SCHEDULING ORDER Defendants. 16 Defendants V. Kieu, C. Lundgren, and J. Levin (f/k/a/ Bogacs) answered the second amended complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36, discovery shall proceed in accordance with paragraphs 1-5 of this order. In addition, the court sets a schedule for this litigation. Should this matter proceed to trial the court will, by subsequent order, require the parties to file pretrial statements. In addition to the matters required to be addressed in the pretrial statement in accordance with Local Rule 281, plaintiff will be required to make a particularized showing in the pretrial statement in order to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with the procedures set forth below may result in the preclusion of 26 …

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.