REDMOND v. YACHTING SOLUTIONS LLC

Filing 45

ORDER FOLLOWING CONFERENCE- Stipulated Record due by 10/15/2018; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/22/2018, response due by 11/13/2018, reply due by 11/27/2018 By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOHN REDMOND,
Plaintiff,
v.
YACHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC,,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:17-cv-00292-GZS
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER FOLLOWING CONFERENCE

Having reviewed the Local Rule 56(h) memoranda filed by both sides (ECF Nos. 38 & 39),
the Court held a conference of counsel on September 5, 2018. At the conference, Plaintiff’s
counsel orally moved to dismiss Count II (Unseaworthiness) of the Amended Complaint. This
Motion was granted without objection. Having considered the representations made by counsel
regarding the two remaining counts of the Amended Complaint, the Court hereby ORDERS that
the following procedure be followed in connection with the Defendant’s to-be-filed motion:
On or before October 15, 2018, the parties shall file a joint stipulated record using the
“Stipulated Record” event in CM/ECF. The first page of the Stipulated Record shall consist of a
list describing each exhibit submitted. Each exhibit shall then be clearly labeled and separately
attached to this filing. The Stipulated Record may include any exhibits and depositions 1 (including
any relevant exhibits to the depositions) that both sides agree will be referenced in the statements
of material fact. The inclusion of any exhibit in the Stipulated Record does not prevent any party

1

To the extent any depositions are filed, counsel shall endeavor to ensure that any deposition excerpt is complete
and includes all relevant pages. In the absence of an agreement on what constitutes a complete deposition excerpt,
counsel shall include the complete deposition in the joint record.

from later objecting to the admissibility of the document. Likewise, the submission of a joint
record does not prevent either side from submitting additional documents with their respective
statements of material fact.
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 the purposes of the to-be-filed
summary judgment motion. See D. Me. Local Rule 56(g). Any stipulations will be considered by
the Court in ruling on the motion and need not be reiterated or referenced in the statements of
material fact. The parties are free to submit any stipulations on or before October 15, 2018.
On or before October 22, 2018, Defendant shall file its outlined motion for summary
judgment. The motion for summary judgment shall not exceed twenty (20) pages.
On or before November 13, 2018, Plaintiff shall file its opposition to the pending motion
for summary judgment. This response shall not exceed twenty (20) pages.
On or before November 27, 2018, Defendant shall file its reply in support of Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment, which shall not exceed seven (7) pages.
The Court also expects the parties’ summary judgment filings will comply with all aspects
of Local Rule 56. Absent prior court approval, Defendant’s statement of material facts shall not
exceed seventy-five (75) paragraphs. Any additional statement of material facts by Plaintiff shall
not exceed seventy-five (75) 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 any
party will rely on a page of the joint record for a specific citation, the Court encourages the parties

2

to use the “PageID #” generated by CM/ECF, particularly if the alternative pin citation may not be
readily apparent to the Court.
With respect to the prior Scheduling Order deadlines (ECF Nos. 8, 25, 32 & 34), it appears
that the deadlines that may remain after the anticipated motion for summary judgment include a
deadline for Plaintiff to file the Daubert/Kumho motion discussed at today’s conference, as well
as the ready for trial deadline and any trial-related motions deadlines. These deadlines shall remain
stayed until the Court issues its ruling on the motion for summary judgment. To the extent that
issues remain for trial after the motion for summary judgment is decided, the Court anticipates that
this case will be placed on the next available trial list following the Court’s summary judgment
decision and that pre-trial motions, including any Daubert/Kumho motion, shall, to the extent
practicable, be filed prior to any final pretrial conference.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 5th day of September, 2018.

3