Torres v. Hansen
- Ilston
- 3:16-cv-06607
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Torres v. Hansen, Judge Ilston set deadlines for discovery, pretrial proceedings, and a jury trial.
The plaintiff and defendants in Torres v. Hansen, who were required to follow the court’s litigation schedule.
What happened
Torres v. Hansen was nearly ready for a jury trial expected to last four to six days. The defendants filed a case-management statement, but Mario Torres did not.
The court ordered the parties to complete non-expert discovery by June 30, 2020, disclose experts in July, and file pretrial statements by August 4. It scheduled the pretrial conference for August 18 and the trial to begin August 31, 2020.
Judge Susan Ilston warned that extensions were extremely unlikely and that failing to meet the deadlines could lead to sanctions or dismissal. The order set the schedule; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Hansen · No. 3:16-cv-06607
- Ilston
- Mar. 10, 2020
Background The court had ordered the parties to file case-management statements addressing whether the case was ready for trial. The defendants filed a statement, but plaintiff Mario Torres did not. Based on the case file and the defendants’ statement, the court determined that the case was almost ready for a jury trial expected to last four to six days.
Schedule The court ordered that all non-expert discovery be completed by June 30,
- The parties had to disclose trial experts by July 1, rebuttal experts by July 14, and complete expert discovery by July
- They had to file pretrial conference statements by August
- The pretrial conference was scheduled for August 18, 2020, and trial was scheduled to begin August 31, 2020.
Warnings and ruling The court warned that, because deadlines in the order were connected, extensions were extremely unlikely. It stated that failing to comply with a court-ordered deadline could result in sanctions or dismissal under the court’s authority and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Susan Ilston entered the scheduling order. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed the case, imposed sanctions, or decided the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.