Rosario Soto v. Arthur J. Gallagher Service

1 RUBEN LIMONJYAN, SBN 305307 [email protected] ZARA ARAKELYAN, SBN 297677 [email protected] ROBERT MEEHAN, SBN 356701 [email protected] LIMONJYAN LAW GROUP, APC N. Central Avenue, Suite 2210 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: 213-277-7444 Facsimile: 213-866-9636 Attorneys for Plaintiff ROSARIO SOTO ANTHONY J. DECRISTOFORO, SBN 166171 [email protected] SPENCER S. TURPEN, SBN 296483 [email protected] OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

12 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Attorneys for Defendant ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER SERVICE COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROSARIO SOTO, an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-03055-WBS-CSK 21 Plaintiff, MODIFIED ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION TO REQUEST 22 vs. MODIFICATION TO STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER SERVICE COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES Action Filed: September 17, 2024 through 20, Inclusive, Removal Filed: November 1, 2024 25 Trial Date: June 9, 2026 Defendant.

1 Pursuant to the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, Plaintiff ROSARIO SOTO (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER SERVICE COMPANY (“Defendant”) (collectively “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate, and make the following request to modify the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order: 5 WHEREAS on April 1, 2025, the Court issued the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Document 12); 7 WHEREAS pursuant to the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, the Parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than October 6, 2025; 10 WHEREAS pursuant to the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal shall be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before November 3, 2025; 13 WHEREAS pursuant to the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, all discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony, must be completed by December 1, 2025; 15 WHEREAS pursuant to the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, the Parties may request a modification to the dates or terms of the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order; 17 WHEREAS under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a pre-trial schedule “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Good cause requires a showing of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); 20 WHEREAS the Parties have diligently and cooperatively participated in discovery, including exchanging initial disclosures, propounding and responding to written discovery requests, exchanging documents, and conducting the first day of Plaintiff’s deposition; 23 WHEREAS the Parties intend to complete the deposition of Plaintiff and other fact witnesses in October and November, 2025; 25 WHEREAS despite this diligent exchange of information in discovery, the Parties believe they need to complete the remaining depositions and other discovery to adequately determine the need for expert testimony in this case; 1 WHEREAS the Parties believe extending the deadline for disclosing experts and producing reports, disclosing rebuttal experts and producing rebuttal reports, and deposing experts until after the close of fact discovery would allow for a more deliberate and informed decision about experts; 4 WHEREAS the Parties are not asking the Court to modify any other dates in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order; 6 WHEREAS the Parties have met and conferred, and agreed and hereby stipulate to request the following modification to the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order: 8 1. The Parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than January 6, 2026; 10 2. Expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal shall be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before February 5, 2026; 12 3. The Parties shall complete depositions of experts on or before March 6, 2026.

13 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

14 DATED: October 2, 2025 LIMONJYAN LAW GROUP, APC

By: /s/ Robert Meehan (as authorized on 10/2/25) 17 Ruben Limonjyan Zara Arakelyan 18 Robert Meehan Attorneys for Plaintiff ROSARIO SOTO DATED: October 2, 2025 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

22 By: /s/ Spencer S. Turpen Anthony J. DeCristoforo 23 Spencer S. Turpen 24 Attorneys for Defendant ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER SERVICE COMPANY

MODIFIED ORDER 3 THIS COURT, having read and considered the Joint Stipulation to Request Modification to 4||the Status (pretrial Scheduling) Order by, between and among Plaintiff ROSARIO SOTO || (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER SERVICE COMPANY (“Defendant’’) and || finding good cause therefor, orders as follows: 7 1. The Parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than January 6, 2026; 9 2. Expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal shall be disclosed and reports produced 10 in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before February 11 5, 2026; 12 3. The Parties shall complete depositions of experts on or before March 6, 2026.

13 4. The Parties are not asking the Court to modify any other dates in the Status (Pretrial 14 Scheduling) Order. Therefore, the January 26, 2026 motions deadline; April 6, 2026 15 Final Pretrial Conference; and June 9, 2026 trial date remain in place. See 4/1/2025 16 Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12).

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 ~ .

0 Dated: October 7, 2025 Cn Sp IES CHI SOO KIM 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22. || 4, soto3055.24