Belcastro-Gonzalez v. City of Omaha et al
Filing
43
AMENDED FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER - The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. The status conference to discuss case progression, the parties' interest in settlement, and the trial and pretrial conference settings remains a s scheduled and will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge by telephone on December 6, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference. (Filing No. 42 .) The fact deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is December 1, 2021. The expert deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is June 1, 2022. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (LKO)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KATHERINE BELCASTRO-GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
8:19CV572
vs.
CITY OF OMAHA, a Municipal Corporation;
TODD SCHMADERER, Chief of Police of the
Omaha Police Department, in his official and
individual Capacity; JEAN STOTHERT,
Mayor of the City of Omaha; and TIM
YOUNG, Former Human Relations Director
for the City of Omaha, in his official and
individual Capacity;
AMENDED FINAL
PROGRESSION ORDER
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Enlargement of
Time of Progression Order Dates. (Filing No. 41.) The motion is granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the provisions of the Court’s previous final progression order 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
to discuss case progression, the parties’ interest in settlement, and the trial and
pretrial conference settings remains as scheduled and will be held with the
undersigned magistrate judge by telephone on December 6, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate
in the conference. (Filing No. 42.)
2)
The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36 and 45 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is August 2, 2021. Motions to compel written
discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36 and 45 must be filed by August 18, 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):
December 28, 2021
January 28, 2022
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)
February 9, 2022
February 23, 2022
April 4, 2022
The fact deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral
testimony only under Rule 45, is December 1, 2021.
The expert deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral
testimony only under Rule 45, is June 1, 2022.
a. The maximum number of depositions that may be taken by the plaintiffs as
a group and the defendants as a group is 25.
b. Depositions will be limited by Rule 30(d)(1).
6)
The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is
July 12, 2022.
7)
The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and related
grounds is July 12, 2022.
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 7th day of June, 2021.
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
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?