LeBlanc v. NH State Prison, Warden et al

Filing 29

///ORDER approving 28 Discovery Plan; denying without prejudice 27 Discovery Plan and denying without prejudice 25 Motion to Compel. Summary Judgment Motions due by 7/8/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 3/15/201 3. Discovery deadline 7/12/2013. ( Summary Judgment Motions due by 7/8/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 3/15/2013. Discovery deadline 7/12/2013. Further, the court grants oral request and instructs the clerks office to terminate Phelps as a named defendant from the case. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(cmp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Daniel J. LeBlanc, Sr. v. Civil No. 12-cv-084-JL Kevin Stevenson, et al. O R D E R On November 26, 2012, a preliminary pretrial conference was held in this case. Plaintiff appeared via telephone on his own behalf; Attorney Lynmarie C. Cusack appeared for defendants Kevin Stevenson, Pal Casio, Teresa Quint and Janis Phelps; and Attorney Martin P. Honigberg appeared for defendants Emily Bryant and Anthony Ramirez. The court approved the defendants’ joint proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 28), with only minor amendments thereto. The key deadlines in the discovery plan are summarized in the chart below. The parties concurred with respect to each of the following deadlines. Scheduling Designation Deadline Joinder of Additional Parties Plaintiff: December 1, 2012 Defendants: January 1, 2013 Third-Party Actions December 1, 2012 Amendment of Pleadings Plaintiff: December 1, 2012 Defendants: January 1, 2013 Offer February 1, 2013 Experts and Experts' Written Reports  Plaintiff: February 28, 2013 Defendants: May 1, 2013 Supplementation under Rule 26(a) As required by Rule 26(e)(2) Motions to Dismiss March 15, 2013 Motions for Summary Judgment July 8, 2013 Completion of Discovery July 12, 2013 Challenges to Expert Testimony Trial Estimate (number of days) September 22, 2013 2-3 days Two-week period beginning November 5, 2013 Trial Date In light of the court’s approval of defendant’s proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 28), the court denies as moot plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 27). Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. no. 25). Plaintiff filed the motion before forwarding a formal discovery request to the defendants. such, the motion is untimely. As The court denies the motion (doc. no. 25) without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file such a motion in the event defendants fail to provide plaintiff with discovery to which plaintiff believes he is entitled. Defendants have agreed to construe the motion as a formal discovery request and will respond to it within thirty days from the date of the hearing. Plaintiff made an oral motion to voluntarily dismiss Janis Phelps as a named defendant in the case. 2 Rather than require plaintiff to file a formal written request to dismiss Phelps from the case, the court grants his oral request and instructs the clerk’s office to terminate Phelps as a named defendant from the case. __________________________ Landya B. McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge November 27, 2012 cc: Daniel J. LeBlanc, Sr., pro se Lynmarie C. Cusack, Esq. Martin P. Honigberg, Esq. 3