Nash v. Wal-Mart et al

Filing 64

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/07/2016. Discovery due by 7/5/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 8/5/2016. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/13/2016 is VACATED and RESCHEDULED to 10/4/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 501 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02330-RM-MEH
STEVEN NASH,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART, and
LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 7, 2016.
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [filed April 6, 2016; docket #62]
is granted in part and denied in part. For good cause shown, the operative Scheduling Order shall
be modified as follows:
9.

CASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE
a.

The parties will exchange Initial Disclosures no later than APRIL 15, 2016.

b.

Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings: MARCH 30, 2016.

c.

Discovery Cut-off: JULY 5, 2016.

d.

Dispositive Motion Deadline: AUGUST 5, 2016.

e.

Expert Witness Disclosure

The parties shall identify anticipated fields of expert testimony, if any.
Plaintiff:
Structural or Mechanical Engineer
Metallurgist
Medical Experts (non-retained health care providers)
Louisville Ladder:
Louisville Ladder will likely disclose expert witnesses to show that there was not a

defect in the subject ladder, and the ladder could not have caused Plaintiff’s alleged
injuries.
Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart anticipates expert witnesses regarding the lack of a defect in the subject
ladder and an expert to address causation of any alleged injuries or damages.
f.

Limitations which the parties propose on the use or number of expert witnesses:

The parties agree to designate no more than two experts, and no more than one expert per
issue.
g.

The parties shall designate all experts and provide opposing counsel and any pro se
parties with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before JUNE
6, 2016.

h.

The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel and any
pro se party with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before
JULY 5, 2016.

j.

Deadline for Interrogatories: MAY 31, 2016.

k.

Deadline for Requests for Production of Documents and/or Admissions MAY 31,
2016.

In addition, the Final Pretrial Conference scheduled in this case for September 13, 2016 is
hereby vacated and rescheduled to October 4, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A501 on the fifth
floor of the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.
The parties shall submit their proposed pretrial order, pursuant to District of Colorado
Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures V.L. no later than five (5) business days prior to the
pretrial conference. The proposed pretrial order to be submitted to the Magistrate Judge under the
ECF Procedures must be submitted in a useable format (i.e., WordPerfect or Word only) and shall
be emailed to the Magistrate Judge at [e-mail].
Attorneys and/or pro se parties not participating in ECF shall submit their proposed pretrial
order on paper to the Clerk’s Office. However, if any party in this case is participating in ECF, it
is the responsibility of that party to submit the proposed pretrial order pursuant to the District of
Colorado ECF Procedures.
The parties shall prepare the proposed pretrial order in accordance with the form
which may be downloaded in richtext format from the forms section of the court’s website at
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx. Instructions for downloading in richtext format are
2

posted in the forms section of the website.
All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C. Colo. LAttyR 3 prior to the pretrial
conference.
The parties are further advised that they shall not assume that the court will grant the relief
requested in any motion. Failure to appear at a court-ordered conference or to comply with a courtordered deadline which has not been vacated by court order may result in the imposition of
sanctions.
Please remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.2(b).

3