Matheson et al v. United HealthCare Services, Inc. et al

Filing 16

AMENDED FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER - This matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Amend Final Progression Order. (Filing No. 15 .) The motion is granted. Accordingly, the provisions of the Court's earlier final progression order remain in effect, and in addition to those provisions, the following shall apply: The trial and pretrial conference will not be reset at this time. The status conference previously set for March 10, 2020 is canceled. A telephonic status confere nce 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 April 27, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (LKO)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DOUGLAS MATHESON, Individually and as
parent and natural guardian of John Matheson;
and MOLLY MATHESON, Individually and
as parent and natural guardian of John
Matheson;

8:19CV187
AMENDED FINAL
PROGRESSION ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a
Minnesota corporation; and UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., d/b/a Optum,
a California corporation;
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Final Progression
Order. (Filing No. 15.) The motion is granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the provisions of the Court's earlier final progression order remain
in effect, and in addition to those provisions, the following shall apply:
1)

The trial and pretrial conference will not be reset at this time. The status conference
previously set for March 10, 2020 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
April 27, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions
assigned to this case to participate in the conference.

2)

The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is January 8, 2020. Motions to compel discovery
under Rules 33, 34, and 36 must be filed by January 22, 2020
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):

March 10, 2020
March 10, 2020

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):

5)

March 10, 2020
March 10, 2020

The deposition deadline is April 28, 2020.
a. Depositions will be limited by Rule 30(d)(1)

6)

The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is
May 27, 2020.

7)

The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and related
grounds is June 17, 2020.

8)

Motions in limine shall be filed seven days before the pretrial conference. It is not
the normal practice to hold hearings on motions in limine or to rule on them prior
to the first day of trial. Counsel should plan accordingly.

9)

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.

10)

All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established herein shall be directed
to the undersigned magistrate judge, including all requests for changes of trial dates.
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 19th day of November, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Susan M. Bazis
United 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