LONG v. FAIRBANK FARMS INC et al

Filing 388

ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARGARET LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAIRBANK FARMS
RECONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Defendant & Third-Party
Plaintiff
v.
GREATER OMAHA PACKING
COMPANY, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant.

ALICE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAIRBANK FARMS
RECONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Defendant & Third-Party
Plaintiff
v.
GREATER OMAHA PACKING
COMPANY, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 1:09-cv-592-GZS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket no. 2:10-cv-60-GZS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE
On November 16, 2011, the Court held a telephonic conference of counsel in order to
queue up all of the remaining items to be addressed following the jury verdict. The following
counsel of record were in attendance:
For Third-Party Plaintiff:

For Third-Party Defendant:

Paul Catsos, Esq.

Alison Denham, Esq.

Ralph Weber, Esq.

David Patterson Gloor, Esq.

Shawn Stevens, Esq.

Stephen Ellenbecker, Esq.

Initially, Third-Party Plaintiff Fairbank Reconstruction Corporation agreed that it would
not seek reinstatement of the Order to Show Cause (Long Docket # 166/Smith Docket # 143).
Therefore, the Court hereby finally terminates these Orders to Show Cause.
During trial the parties had indicated on the record their agreement to have any remaining
issues involving attorneys’ fees and costs resolved by the Court.

At that time, the Court

indicated the procedure for attorneys’ fees in both Long and Smith would be determined posttrial if there was a verdict in favor of Fairbank. At today’s conference, the parties further agreed
that the timing for the filing Fairbank’s request for attorneys’ fees would be governed by District
of Maine Local Rule 54.2.
To the extent that GOPAC has reserved the right to seek discovery on the issue of
attorneys’ fees, GOPAC may respond to Fairbank’s motion for attorneys’ fees by timely filing a
motion for discovery that is tailored to Fairbank’s motion and specifies the issues and type of
discovery it is seeking. Any motion for discovery will be fully briefed and decided prior to the
completion of briefing on the motion for attorneys’ fees.
2 

In order to streamline the process for filing of any post-trial motions, the Long Docket
(1:09-cv-592-GZS) will continue to be designated as the lead docket for purposes of all post-trial
motions. Thus, all future post-trial-related filings shall be filed only on the Long Docket absent a
party seeking leave to make a separate filing on the Smith docket.
Counsel and interested parties reviewing Docket No. 2:10-cv-60-GZS (the Smith Docket)
are hereby directed to the Long Docket (Docket # 1:09-cv-592-GZS) to review post-trial-related
submissions, orders and docket entries made on or after November 16, 2011.

The Court

considers all of the post-judgment docket entries found on the Long Docket following entry of
this Order to be incorporated into the Smith Docket for purposes of any later motion or appeal.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge

Dated this 16th day of November, 2011.

3