Crago v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 42

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 40 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Judtih K. Guthrie. (JSF)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION DONALD A. ELLIS, ET AL. Vs. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:07CV231 ORDER Defendant filed an Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (document #40), asserting that the parties seek modification of the scheduling order. After due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (document #40) is GRANTED. The deadlines are amended as follows: May 18, 2008 Plaintiffs to designate expert witnesses and provide FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) report Defendant to designate expert witnesses and provide FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) report Filing dispositive motions Response to dispositive motions; responses to dispositive motions filed prior to the deadline shall be due in accordance with Local Rule CV-7 Mediation Daubert motions or other expert witness objections Discovery Page 1 of 2 June 18, 2008 July 14, 2008 July 28, 2008 August 11, 2008 September 6, 2008 September 6, 2008 N:\Civil\Referrals\Ellis - motion to extend ddls.wpd September 15, 2008 September 22, 2008 Pretrial disclosures Motions in limine, Joint Final Pretrial Order, jointly proposed jury instructions and form of the verdict and objections to depositions or exhibits Date parties should be prepared to try the case (docket call to be set by Judge Heartfield) October 6, 2008 So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23 day of April, 2008. ____________________________ JUDITH K. GUTHRIE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE N:\Civil\Referrals\Ellis - motion to extend ddls.wpd Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?