United States of America v. Isaacson et al

Filing 40

ORDER approving 32 Discovery Plan as submitted, with changes. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. Ready for Trial on 5/17/2011. Summary Judgment Motions due by 1/19/2011. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 9/19/2010. (kad)

USA v. Isaacson et al

Doc. 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States v Kenneth C. Isaacson Civil No. 09-cv-332-LM

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held on July 19, 2010. The following attorneys were in attendance: Attorney

Andrea Kafka for the plaintiff; Attorneys Robert Shaines and Alec McEachern for defendants Kenneth Isaacson, Hazel Isaacson, and Barbara Callahan; Attorney Mary Ganz for defendant Cambridge Trust Co.; and Attorneys Finis Williams and Bradford Kuster for themselves as intervenors. Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at the conference, Kenneth Isaacson no longer disputes jurisdiction. Thus, paragraph 1 and the second clause of paragraph 2 of Mr. Isaacson's Amended Answer (document no. 21) are stricken. The Discovery Plan (document no. 32) is approved as submitted, with the following changes: Trial Date: Trial is scheduled for the two-week period

beginning May 17, 2011. Interrogatories: The court grants the parties' request to

propound no more than 30 interrogatories per party.

Dockets.Justia.com

Motions to Dismiss:

Motions to dismiss shall be filed no

later than September 19, 2010. Summary Judgment: Motions for Summary judgment shall be The parties and counsel

filed no later than January 19, 2011.

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. With respect to any discovery disputes

in the future that the parties are unable to resolve themselves, the parties have agreed to the following procedure: each party shall file with the court a letter explaining its position with respect to the dispute, and, after the submissions are received, the court shall schedule a telephone conference with the parties and resolve the dispute with an informal order, thereby obviating the need for formal litigation. If counsel prefer traditional

discovery litigation to the conference call procedure set forth above, counsel should put the discovery dispute before the court in the form of a formal pleading rather than a letter. SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Landya B. McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge Dated: July 19, 2010 cc: Gary M. Burt, Esq. Mary K. Ganz, Esq. Andrea A. Kafka, Esq. Bradford W. Kuster, Esq. Alec L. McEachern, Esq. Robert A. Shaines, Esq. 2