Abraham v. Douglas County

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time on Progression Order (Filing No. 18 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Filing No. 17 ) is denied as moot. (Pretrial Conference set for 9/6/2012 at 10:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart.) Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (TEL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GARY LAMONT ABRAHAM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV302

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion
for Extension of Time on Progression Order (Filing No. 18).
Defendant does not object to the motion (Filing No. 20).

For

good cause shown, the Motion for Extension of Time will be
granted and the deadlines for progression of this matter are
modified as set forth below.
Also pending is plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Filing
No. 17).

It appears that defendant has now provided all of the

documents and items sought by plaintiff in the Motion to Compel
(Filing No. 20).

Thus, the motion will be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time on

Progression Order (Filing No. 18) is granted.

This matter is

progressed as follows:
2.

All depositions, whether or not they are intended

to be used at trial, shall be completed by June 20, 2012.

3.

Motions to compel discovery shall be filed on or

before June 20, 2012.

The parties must comply with the

provisions of NECivR 7.0.1 before filing a motion to compel.
4.

All dispositive motions shall be filed on or

before July 20, 2012.

The parties must comply with the

provisions of NECivR 7.0.1 and NECivR 56.1 when filing summary
judgment motions.
5.

Pretrial Conference.
a.

Defense counsel will have the primary
responsibility for drafting 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
August 3, 2012. The plaintiff shall provide
additions and/or proposed deletions to
Defense counsel by August 17, 2012. Defense
counsel shall submit the Proposed Order on
Final Pretrial Conference to the court by no
later than August 31, 2012. 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 Magistrate Judge on September 6,
2012, 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.

-2-

c.

6.

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.

The trial date will be set by the Magistrate Judge

at the time of the Final Pretrial Conference.
7.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Filing No. 17) is

denied as moot.
DATED this 10th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

* 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-