Watchous Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Pacific National Capital et al
Filing
138
THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER and ORDER granting 136 motion for extension of deadlines. Discovery deadline 9/14/2018. Dispositive motion deadline 10/15/2018. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/21/2018. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/2/2 018 at 09:00 AM in KC Courtroom 223 (JPO) before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Jury Trial set for 3/19/2019 at 09:00 AM in Wichita Courtroom 238 (JTM) before District Judge J. Thomas Marten. In Limine Conference set for 3/13/ 2019 at 02:30 PM by Telephone JTM - CONFERENCE LINE 1-888-363-4749 ACCESS CODE 4079202 before District Judge J. Thomas Marten. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 4/5/2018. (amh) Modified on 4/5/2018 to add the limine conference (aa).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
WATCHOUS ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-1432-JTM
PACIFIC NATIONAL CAPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
This case comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 136) to amend the
scheduling orders entered in this case (ECF Nos. 19, 28, and 89). Pursuant to D. Kan. Rule
6.1(d), the court set a deadline of April 4, 2018, for defendants to respond to the motion
(ECF No. 137). No timely response has been filed.
D. Kan. Rule 7.4 provides: “If a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed within
the D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d) time requirements, the court will consider and decided the motion
as an uncontested motion. Ordinarily, the court will grant the motion without further
notice.” The court could grant the motion solely on the basis that it is unopposed.
However, the court also finds that good cause has been shown for granting the proposed
extensions. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the scheduling order is amended as
follows:
a.
All discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by
September 14, 2018.
1
O:\ORDERS\16-1432-jtm-136-3ASO.docx
b.
Disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), including reports from
retained experts, are due from plaintiff by June 1, 2018, and from defendants by July 13,
2018. Disclosures and reports by any rebuttal experts are due by August 13, 2018.
c.
The final pretrial conference is rescheduled from August 17, 2018, to
October 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in the U.S. Courthouse, Room 223, 500 State Avenue,
Kansas City, Kansas. Unless otherwise notified, the undersigned magistrate judge will
conduct the conference. No later than September 21, 2018, defendants shall submit the
parties’ proposed pretrial order as an attachment to an e-mail directed to
ksd_ohara_chambers@ksd.uscourts.gov. It shall be in the form available on the court’s
website (www.ksd.uscourts.gov), and the parties shall affix their signatures according to
the procedures governing multiple signatures set forth in paragraphs II(C)(2)(a) & (b) of
the Administrative Procedures for Filing, Signing, and Verifying Pleadings and Papers by
Electronic Means in Civil Cases.
d.
All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than October 15, 2018. Any
response shall be filed by November 5, 2018, and any reply shall be filed by November
19, 2018.
e.
Motions challenging the admissibility of expert testimony are due by
January 22, 2019.
f.
In limine motions and proposed jury instructions are due by March 6, 2019.
g.
The limine conference will be held by telephone on March 13, 2019, at 2:30
p.m.
2
O:\ORDERS\16-1432-jtm-136-3ASO.docx
h.
This case is re-set for trial on a trial calendar that will begin on March 19,
2019.
All other provisions of the original and amended scheduling orders shall remain in
effect. The schedule adopted in this third amended scheduling order shall not be modified
except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated April 5, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
3
O:\ORDERS\16-1432-jtm-136-3ASO.docx
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?