1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK HAMPTON, No. 2:25-cv-01387-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 14 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT 17 THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND 18 PARTIES MUST COMPLY. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER 19 MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE 20 SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN ORDER OF JUDGMENT. 21 This action was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court on May 15, 2025. 22 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Mark Hampton originally filed this action in the Sacramento County 23 Superior Court on April 14, 2025. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. 24 (“Nissan”) filed an answer in the Superior Court on May 14, 2025.1 (ECF No. 1-2.) The parties 25 have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction for all purposes. (ECF Nos. 3, 6, 7.) After 26 27 1 At the time of filing of the notice of removal, the state court had not yet docketed defendant’s 28 answer. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 1 considering the parties’ joint status report (ECF No. 4), the Court issues the following pretrial 2 scheduling order.2 3 NATURE OF THE CASE3 4 Plaintiff’s Position 5 This action is a breach-of-warranty case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act 6 (Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. §§ 1790, et seq.), arising from plaintiff’s purchase of a 2023 Nissan Rogue, 7 bearing VIN: 5N1BT3BB0PC833382 (“Subject Vehicle”) on or about June 10, 2023. The Subject 8 Vehicle was sold to Plaintiff with express and implied warranties from defendant. During the 9 warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects, including (but not limited 10 to) defects related to the transmission, engine, electrical, and emission systems. Said defects 11 substantially impair the Subject Vehicle’s use, value, and/or safety. Notwithstanding, defendant 12 and its representatives in this state have been unable to service or repair the Subject Vehicle to 13 conform to the applicable warranties after a reasonable number of attempts. Despite this, 14 defendant failed to promptly replace the Subject Vehicle or make restitution to plaintiff as 15 required under California law. 16 Defendant’s Position: 17 Defendant denies all of the allegations of the Complaint. Defendant asked plaintiff to 18 provide defendant with the vehicle documents and repair history documents to allow defendant to 19 promptly work on an evaluation. Defendant pled multiple affirmative defenses. 20 SERVICE OF PROCESS 21 The parties indicate that all parties have been served. (ECF No. 4 at 2, ¶ 1.) In the 22 Complaint, plaintiff sued ten Doe defendants. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3, 4 ¶ 5.) Based on the parties’ 23 joint status report it appears that service is complete. No further service is permitted except with 24 leave of Court, good cause having been shown. 25 //// 26 2 The Court found the dates proposed by the parties following the proposed fact discovery cutoff 27 unworkable and has modified those proposed deadlines. 3 The parties did not describe the nature of the case in their joint status report, so this description 28 is from plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s answer. 1 JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 2 Defendant has answered Plaintiff’s complaint. The parties stated in their joint status report 3 that they do not anticipate joining additional parties, but their agreed up deadline to join 4 additional parties is August 15, 2025. (ECF No. 4 at 2, ¶ 3.) No further joinder of parties or 5 amendments to pleadings are permitted except with leave of Court, good cause having been 6 shown. 7 JURISDICTION/VENUE 8 Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed, and are hereby found to be proper. 9 INITIAL DISCLOSURES 10 Pursuant to the parties agreement, initial disclosures should have been exchanged on or by 11 July 18, 2025. Such disclosures shall include production of any documents and other items 12 required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) that are within a party’s possession, custody, or control. 13 DISCOVERY DEADLINES, PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES 14 All non-expert discovery shall be completed4 by April 10, 2026. Any discovery-related 15 motions must conform to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this 16 Court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 251. 17 Prior to filing any discovery-related motions, the parties are required to meet and confer in 18 good faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes informally and without court 19 intervention. Such meet and confer shall take place in person, or at a minimum, via a telephonic 20 conference. The mere exchange of letters or e-mails alone is not sufficient. As part of their joint 21 statement related to a discovery motion submitted pursuant to Local Rule 251, the parties shall 22 also specifically outline: (a) what meet-and-confer efforts were undertaken; (b) when and where 23 such discussions took place; (c) who was present; and (d) how the parties’ disputes were 24 narrowed as a result of such discussions. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in 25 summary denial of any discovery motion. 26

27 4 “Completed” means (1) all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and (2) any disputes related to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order 28 if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. 1 The Court strongly encourages the use of informal telephonic discovery conferences with 2 the Court in lieu of formal discovery motion practice. The procedures and conditions for 3 requesting and conducting such an informal telephonic discovery conference are outlined in 4 Judge Delaney’s “Order re Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes,” posted on 5 the Court’s website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5055/. 6 Additionally, subject to the Court’s availability, the Court will also rule on disputes encountered 7 at oral depositions, so as to avoid such depositions from breaking down. In the course of the 8 deposition, the parties may contact Judge Delaney’s courtroom deputy clerk at (916) 930-4004 to 9 inquire regarding Judge Delaney’s availability. However, the parties are cautioned that these 10 informal procedures are not to be abused, and the Court may impose appropriate sanctions on an 11 offending party or parties, even in the course of informal discovery conferences. 12 In the joint status report, plaintiff makes certain requests of the Court regarding the scope 13 of discovery, including that the scheduling order reflect that, for the depositions of dealership 14 personnel, each day of deposition count as one deposition against the 10-deposition maximum set 15 forth in Federal Rule pf Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A), and that the Court require the parties to meet 16 and confer regarding the search of certain databases. (ECF No. 4 at 4-5.) Should the parties 17 disagree about discovery, they may follow the procedures outlined in this scheduling order 18 regarding discovery disputes. Further, the parties are already required to meet and confer prior to 19 filing any discovery related motion. 20 EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY 21 The parties shall disclose any expert witnesses in accordance with the specifications of 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than May 8, 2026. Any rebuttal expert 23 disclosures shall be made in accordance with the specifications of Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than June 5, 2026. Expert disclosures shall be filed with the Court 25 and served upon all other parties. All expert discovery shall be completed (see fn. 2) by July 3, 26 2026. The same procedures for fact–discovery disputes apply to expert–discovery disputes. 27 An expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless the party 28 offering the witness demonstrates that: (a) the necessity of the witness could not have been 1 reasonably anticipated at the time that the expert disclosures were due; (b) the Court and opposing 2 counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) the witness was promptly 3 proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 26(a)(2) along with the expert disclosures may lead to preclusion of the expert’s 5 testimony or other appropriate sanctions. 6 LAW AND MOTION 7 All law and motion, except as to discovery-related matters, shall be completed (i.e. heard) 8 by September 9, 2026. Counsel and/or parties proceeding without counsel are cautioned to refer 9 to the Local Rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the Court’s regularly 10 scheduled law and motion calendar, including, but not limited to, Local Rule 230. Judge Delaney 11 generally hears civil motions on Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. This paragraph does not preclude 12 motions for continuances, motions in limine related to trial, temporary restraining orders, or other 13 emergency applications, for which the Court may set a special briefing schedule, if necessary or 14 appropriate. 15 ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL 16 MOTION. The purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the 17 case, as well as to dispose of those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial by pretrial 18 motion. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to identify and fully research the issues 19 presented by the case, then examine those issues in light of the evidence obtained through 20 discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the legal issues and facts that an issue can be 21 resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the appropriate motion consistent with the law and 22 motion cutoff set forth above. Conversely, motions in limine are procedural devices designed to 23 address the admissibility of evidence. THE COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON 24 SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED UNDER THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE 25 AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. 26 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE/TRIAL SETTING 27 Plaintiff demands a jury trial. The Court declines to set final pretrial conference and trial 28 dates at this juncture. Instead, the Court orders the parties to submit a Notice of Trial Readiness 1 on one of the following timelines: 2 A. After resolution of any pending dispositive motions, the parties are to submit the 3 Notice not later than thirty (30) days after receiving the court’s ruling(s) on the last 4 filed dispositive motion(s); or 5 B. If the parties do not intend to file dispositive motions, the parties are ordered to file the 6 Notice not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the close of discovery and 7 the notice must include statements of intent to forgo the filing of dispositive motions. 8 In the Notice of Trial Readiness, the parties are to set forth the appropriateness of special 9 procedures, their estimated trial length, any request for a jury, their availability for trial, and if the 10 parties are willing to attend a settlement conference. The Notice shall also estimate how many 11 court days each party will require to present its case, including opening statements and closing 12 arguments. The parties' estimate shall include time necessary for jury selection, time necessary to 13 finalize jury instructions and instruct the jury. After review of the parties’ Joint Notice of Trial 14 Readiness, the court will issue an order that sets forth dates for a final pretrial conference and 15 trial. 16 OBJECTIONS 17 Any objections to this pretrial scheduling order shall be filed within seven (7) days. 18 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 19 The parties state they are familiar with each other, often engage in settlement discussions 20 and do not require the Court’s assistance with settlement at this time. Should the parties wish to 21 conduct a settlement conference with another magistrate judge, they are to contact the 22 undersigned’s courtroom deputy clerk to inquire as to the availability of another magistrate judge 23 for a settlement conference. 24 MODIFICATION OF THIS SCHEDULING ORDER 25 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), this 26 order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of “good cause.” See 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 |} Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). Mere agreement by the 2 || parties pursuant to a stipulation does not constitute good cause. Nor does the unavailability of 3 || witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances, constitute good cause. 4 | Dated: August 5, 2025 Cardy it | / } a a 5 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 || 5, hamp.1387.25 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28