Potuto v. The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska

Filing 40

AMENDED FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER - The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. The status conference presently scheduled for January 11, 2021 is canceled. A telephonic status conference to discuss case progression, the parti es' interest in settlement, and the trial and pretrial conference settings will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on July 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference. (Filing No. 39 .) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is August 20, 2021. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (LKO)

4:20-cv-03003-BCB-SMB Doc # 40 Filed: 11/17/20 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 167

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JOSEPHINE POTUTO,
Plaintiff,

4:20CV3003

vs.
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA,

AMENDED FINAL
PROGRESSION ORDER

Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Progression
Order Deadlines. (Filing No. 38.) The motion is granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the provisions of the Court’s previous Final Progression Orders
remain in effect, and in addition to those provisions, progression shall be amended as follows:
1)

The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. The status conference
presently scheduled for January 11, 2021 is canceled. A telephonic status
conference to discuss case progression, the parties’ interest in settlement, and
the trial and pretrial conference settings will be held with the undersigned
magistrate judge on July 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Counsel shall use the conferencing
instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference. (Filing No. 39.)

2)

The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36 and 45 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is July 30, 2021. Motions to compel written
discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36 and 45 must be filed by August 12, 2021.
Note: A motion to compel, to quash, or for a disputed protective order shall not be
filed without first contacting the chambers of the undersigned magistrate judge to
set a conference for discussing the parties’ dispute.

3)

The deadlines for identifying expert witnesses expected to testify at the trial, (both
retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained experts, (Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are:
For the plaintiff(s):
For the defendant(s):

April 15, 2021
April 15, 2021

4:20-cv-03003-BCB-SMB Doc # 40 Filed: 11/17/20 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 168

4)

The deadlines for complete expert disclosures1 for all experts expected to testify at
trial, (both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained experts,
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are:
For the plaintiff(s):
For the defendant(s):
Rebuttal:

5)

May 15, 2021
May 15, 2021
June 18, 2021

The deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral testimony
only under Rule 45, is August 20, 2021.
a. The maximum number of depositions that may be taken by the plaintiffs as a
group and the defendants as a group:
Plaintiff seeks to take 20 depositions and ask 50 interrogatories. Defendant does
not agree that those numbers will be necessary given the applicable statute of
limitations, and the issues involved in this case. If the parties cannot resolve this
issue as the case progresses, they shall contact the court for a telephone
conference to resolve the issue.
b. Depositions will be limited by Rule 30(d)(1).

6)

The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is
August 23, 2021.

7)

The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and related
grounds is June 29, 2021.

8)

The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and agreements recited in their
Rule 26(f) planning report that are not inconsistent with this order.

9)

All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established herein shall be directed
to the undersigned magistrate judge. Such requests will not be considered absent a
showing of due diligence in the timely progression of this case and the recent
development of circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion,
which require that additional time be allowed.

Dated this 17th day of November, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Susan M. Bazis
Unites States Magistrate Judge

While treating medical and mental health care providers are generally not considered “specially retained
experts,” not all their opinions relate to the care and treatment of a patient. Their opinion testimony is limited to what
is stated within their treatment documentation. As to each such expert, any opinions which are not stated within that
expert’s treatment records and reports must be separately and timely disclosed.
1