Soukup v. Garvin et al

Filing 14

ORDER approving (with changes) 12 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial - 3 days. Case Track: Standard. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Summary Judgment Motions due by 4/1/2010. (cmp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE William Soukup v. Robert Garvin, et al. Civil No. 09-cv-00146-JL

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on September 10, 2009. The Discovery Plan (document no. 12) is approved as submitted, with the following changes: · Plaintiff's expert disclosure - January 1, 2010 · Defendant's expert disclosure - February 15, 2010 · Plaintiff's expert supplementation - March 1, 2010 · Defendant's expert supplementation - March 15, 2010 · "DiBennedetto" disclosure deadline - December 20, 2010 · Summary Judgment - April 1, 2010 · Trial - August 2010 Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at the conference, the following affirmative defenses are stricken without prejudice to being reinstated on request if warranted by

the evidence:

prosecutorial immunity, "good faith" immunity,

statute of limitations, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Summary Judgment. The parties and counsel are advised that

compliance with Rule 56(e) and Local Rule 7.2(b), regarding evidentiary support for factual assertions, and specification and delineation of material issues of disputed fact, will be required. Discovery disputes. Discovery disputes will be handled by

the undersigned judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge, in the normal course. No motion to compel is necessary. The party or

counsel seeking discovery-related relief should confer with adverse counsel to choose mutually available dates, and then contact the Deputy Clerk to schedule a conference call with the court. The court will inform counsel and parties what written

materials, if any, should be submitted in advance of the conference call. Customary motions to compel discovery, while disfavored by the undersigned judge, are nonetheless permissible. If counsel

prefer traditional discovery litigation to the conference call procedure set forth above, any such motion to compel should expressly request, in the title of the motion, a referral to the United States Magistrate Judge. normally be granted. 2 Such referral requests will

SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Joseph N. Laplante United States District Judge Dated: cc: September 10, 2009

Frank P. Spinella, Jr., Esq. Andrew B. Livernois, Esq.

3