Carmichael v. J P Morgan Chase

Filing 22

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR PROGRESSION OF A CASE (PRO SE) - All interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production or inspection, whether or not they are intended to be used at trial, shall be served on or before November 29, 2010. The trial date will be set by Magistrate Judge Zwart at the time of the Final Pretrial Conference. Pretrial Conference set for 5/26/2011 at 10:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: Pretrial conference before Magistrate Judge Cheryl Zwart to be held on May 26, 2011. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (GJG) Modified on 11/1/2010 to remove text regarding copy mailed to pro se party (GJG).

-PRSE Carmichael v. J P Morgan Chase

Doc. 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CLINT CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff, v. J P MORGAN CHASE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:10CV212

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR PROGRESSION OF CASE

In order to progress this case to final resolution: IT IS ORDERED: 1. Deposition and discovery deadline. All depositions, whether or not they are intended to be used at trial, shall be completed by January 6, 2011. All interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production or inspection, whether or not they are intended to be used at trial, shall be served on or before November 29, 2010. 2. Motions to compel discovery shall be filed on or before January 6,

2011. The parties must comply with the provisions of NECivR 7.0.1 before filing a motion to compel. 3. Dispositive Motions. All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before February 7, 2011. The parties must comply with the provisions of NECivR 7.0.1 and NECivR 56.1 when filing summary judgment motions. 4. Pretrial Conference. a. Defense counsel will have the primary responsibility for drafting

Dockets.Justia.com

the Order on Final Pretrial Conference, pursuant to the format and requirements set out in NECivR 16.2(a)(2). The plaintiff will be responsible for cooperating in the preparation and signing of the final version of the Order. The Order should be submitted to the plaintiff and to any other parties by April 18, 2011. The plaintiff shall provide additions and/or proposed deletions to Defense counsel by May 2, 2011. Defense counsel shall submit the Proposed Order on Final Pretrial Conference to the court by no later than May 16, 2011. If a party proposes an addition or deletion which is not agreed to by all the other parties, that fact should be noted in the text of the document. The Proposed Order on Final Pretrial Conference must be signed by all pro se parties and by counsel for all represented parties. b. The Final Pretrial Conference will be held before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on May 26, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Prior to the pretrial conference, all items as directed in NECivR 16.2 and full preparation shall have been completed so that trial may begin at any time following the Pretrial Conference. If a plaintiff is held in an institution, the pretrial conference will be by telephone. In that case, Defense counsel shall contact the plaintiff's institution in advance and arrange to initiate and place the conference call.

c.

5. The trial date will be set by the undersigned Magistrate Judge at the time of the Final Pretrial Conference. 6. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: Pretrial conference before Magistrate 2

Judge Cheryl Zwart to be held on May 26, 2011. DATED this 1st day of November, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. 3