Rockwood et al v. SKF USA Inc.

Filing 172

ORDER : Motion to Amend Complaint by 6/25/10, objection 7/5/10, no reply or surreply. Within 10 days of ruling on motion to amend, Plaintiffs to object to Motion for Sanctions 125 ; defendant to reply, if any, within 7 days, n o surreply. Pending Objection to Motion for Sanctions 141 stricken; sanctions against defendant denied. 147 Motion to Strike Objection denied as moot. 117 Motion to Compel denied as moot. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. (dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Robert Rockwood and Roxana Marchosky v. SKF USA Inc. PROCEDURAL ORDER On June 15, 2010, this court held a structuring conference in this matter. As a result of the discussions with counsel at Civil No. 08-cv-168-JL

that conference, the court makes the following rulings: 1. The plaintiffs shall file their planned motion to amend The defendant shall

the complaint on or before June 25, 2010.

file any objection to the motion on or before July 5, 2010. There shall be no reply or surreply. 2. Within ten days of the court's ruling on the motion to

amend, the plaintiffs shall file an objection to the defendant's pending motion for sanctions (document no. 125). The defendant

shall file its reply, if any, within seven days of the plaintiff's objection. 3. There shall be no surreply.

Because the plaintiffs will be filing a new objection

to the defendant's motion for sanctions, their pending objection (document no. 141) is STRICKEN. Insofar as the objection seeks

sanctions against the defendant, that request for relief is

DENIED because it was not presented in an independent motion. See L.R. 7.1(a)(1). The defendant's motion to strike the

objection (document no. 147) is therefore DENIED as moot. 4. Because the parties have stipulated to a procedure for

the plaintiffs' production of their e-mail passwords, the defendant's motion to compel that information (document no. 117) is DENIED as moot. 5. At this time, the court takes no action on the

plaintiffs' proposals for additional discovery, videotaped depositions, or the designation of additional expert witnesses as set forth in their structuring conference memorandum. Should the

plaintiffs wish to pursue any of these forms of relief, they shall contact the deputy clerk to arrange a telephone conference with the court. SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Joseph N. Laplante United States District Judge Dated: cc: June 16, 2010

William E. Aivalikles, Esq. Steven M. Gordon, Esq. Donald C. Crandlemire, Esq. David Richman, Esq. Matthew R. Williams, Esq. Gregory A. Moffett, Esq. Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

2