FRIENDS OF MERRYMEETING BAY et al v. MILLER HYDRO GROUP

Filing 69

ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE- Stipulated Record due by 5/21/2012, Motions due by 5/25/2012, response to motion due by 6/29/2012, reply to motion due 7/20/2012. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
FRIENDS OF MERRYMEETING BAY,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MILLER HYDRO GROUP,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:11-cv-36-GZS
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE

In accordance with the Procedural Order (Docket # 64), the Court held a conference of
counsel on May 1, 2012. Attorneys Bruce Merrill, David Nicholas, and Joshua Kratka appeared
for Plaintiffs. Attorneys Janet Mills and Jeffrey Talbert appeared for Defendants. Following the
Conference, the Court hereby ORDERS that the following procedure be followed in connection
with Defendant’s motion for summary judgment:
On or before May 21, 2012, the parties shall file a joint stipulated record using the
“Stipulated Record” event in CM/ECF. The first page shall consist of a list describing each
exhibit submitted and each exhibit shall then be clearly labeled and separately attached to this
filing. The joint record may include any exhibits and depositions (including any exhibits to the
depositions) that all sides agree will be referenced in the statements of material facts. The
submission of a stipulated record does not prevent either side from submitting additional
documents with their respective statement of material facts. Additionally, the Court encourages
the parties to file stipulations of fact that could serve to further streamline the parties’ statements
of material fact. The Court reminds the parties that they are free to indicate that any such

stipulations are admissions solely for purposes of the to-be-filed summary judgment motions.
See D. Me. Local Rule 56(g). Any stipulations submitted as part of the joint record will be
considered by the Court in ruling on the motion and need not be reiterated or referenced in the
statements of material fact. Additionally, the parties indicated during the conference that they
have an outstanding discovery dispute concerning the scope of the confidentiality order in place
in this case. As discussed during the conference, the parties shall confer and attempt to resolve
the dispute. If the parties cannot resolve this dispute they shall raise it with the Magistrate Judge.
This dispute will not affect the summary judgment briefing schedule.
On or before May 25, 2012, the parties shall file their motions for summary judgment,
which shall not exceed twenty (20) pages. See Local Rule 7(e).
On or before June 29, 2012, the parties shall file their responses, which shall not exceed
twenty (20) pages. See id.
On or before July 20, 2012, the parties shall file their replies, which shall not exceed
seven (7) pages. See id.
As discussed at the conference, the parties will file any and all Daubert and Kumho
motions challenging expert witnesses on the same schedule.
The Court also expects the parties’ filings will comply with all aspects of Local Rule 56.
Each side may file a statement of material fact not to exceed one hundred (100) separately
numbered paragraphs. The parties are reminded that Local Rule 56(f) requires specific record
citations for all facts submitted in a statement of material facts. Absent a specific citation, the
Court has no duty to consider any part of the record submitted. To the extent that any party
qualifies or denies a statement based on a pending Daubert motion, the denial or qualification
shall explicitly reference the pending motion.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 1st day of May, 2012.