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

Filing 44

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56 - Stipulation of Facts and any additional statements of fact as to which counsel have not been able to stipulate due by 7/20/2012. Motions for Summary Judgment and any response to the statement of fact filed on 7/20/2012 that were not stipulated due by 7/27/2012. Response to the Summary Judgment Motions due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/15/2012. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ESTATE OF CRAIG L. ALLARD, by )
his Personal Representative,
)
Charlene Allard, AND
)
CHARLENE ALLARD,
)
individually,
)
)
PLAINTIFF
)
)
v.
)
)
COL. ROBERT A. WILLIAMS,
)
Chief, Maine State Police,
)
PHILLIP ALEXANDER,
)
ROGER TEACHOUT AND
)
AARON M. PHINNEY,
)
)
DEFENDANTS
)

CIVIL NO. 2:11-CV-283-DBH

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56
The lawyers engaged in discussion about what is factually disputed and
agreed that there is very little, perhaps no, factual dispute.

The state

defendants’ lawyer shall distribute his draft statement of material facts
tomorrow, June 29, 2012, and by July 20, the parties shall file their stipulation
of facts, reserving the right to argue materiality and relevance, and any
additional statements of fact as to which they have not been able to stipulate.
By July 27, the defendants shall file their respective motions for summary
judgment, and all parties shall file any response to the statements of fact filed
on July 20 that were not stipulated. By August 10, the plaintiff shall respond
to the summary judgment motions. We did not discuss a Reply deadline at the

conference, but I now establish a Reply deadline of August 15. I alerted the
defendant Phinney and the plaintiff to the issue whether the court should
continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against Phinney if
the state defendants are successful in their motion for summary judgment.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The state defendants and the plaintiff agreed that oral
argument is unnecessary; the defendant Phinney will notify the court when he
files his motion whether he believes oral argument is necessary.

All other

deadlines are stayed pending the court’s ruling on the motion.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
/s/D. Brock Hornby
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2