ESTATE OF CRAIG L ALLARD, et al v. WILLIAMS et al

Filing 14

REPORT OF HEARING AND ORDER re: Scheduling Order re: granting 11 Objection to Scheduling Order By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN H. RICH III. (mjlt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

ESTATE OF CRAIG L. ALLARD, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
v.
)
)
COLONEL ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)

No. 2:11-cv-283-DBH

REPORT OF HEARING AND ORDER
RE: SCHEDULING ORDER

Held in Portland by telephone on November 10, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.
Presiding:

John H. Rich III, United States Magistrate Judge

Appearances:

For the Plaintiff: Chris Nielsen, Esq.
For the State Defendants: William Fisher, Esq.
For Defendant Phinney: Kevin Libby, Esq.

The telephone conference was held at my request in response to the filing of an objection
(Docket No. 11) by Attorneys Nielsen and Fisher to the scheduling order issued in this case (Docket
No. 10). At the outset of the conference, Attorney Libby made clear that he agreed to the requested
amendment. After discussion, and treating the objection as a motion to amend the scheduling order,
I GRANTED the motion. The following change will be made to the scheduling order:

1

1

The plaintiffs may serve up to 30 interrogatories, up to 30 requests for admissions,

and up to 2 requests for production of documents on the state defendants, as a group, and on
defendant Phinney; they may take up to 10 depositions.

2

The state defendants may serve up to 30 interrogatories, up to 30 requests for

admissions, and up to 2 requests for production of documents on the plaintiffs, as a group, and on
defendant Phinney; they may take up to 10 depositions.

3

Defendant Phinney may serve up to 30 interrogatories, up to 30 requests for

admissions, and up to 2 requests for production of documents on the plaintiffs, as a group, and on the
state defendants, as a group; he may take up to 10 depositions.

4

All deadlines set by the scheduling order remain in force.

SO ORDERED.

2

CERTIFICATE
A. This report fairly reflects the actions taken at the hearing and shall be filed
forthwith.
B. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to review by the district court and to any further appeal of
this order.
Dated this 10th day of November, 2011.

/s/ John H. Rich III
John H. Rich III
United States Magistrate Judge

3