French v. Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. et al

Filing 24

ORDER approving as outlined 21 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 7-10 days. Case Track: Complex. Amendments to Answers 3/23/11. Affirmative defenses stricken as outlined. Parties to notify court by 3/11/11 about cross claims. Parties to notify court by 4/8/11 about diversity jurisdiction. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Summary Judgment Motions due by 6/1/2012. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 9/1/2011. Mediation Follow Up on 1/3/2012. (dae)

French v. Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. et al

Doc. 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Denise F. French v. Time Warner Entertainment, et al. Civil No. 10-cv-00498-JL

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on March 8, 2011. The Discovery Plan (document no. 21) is approved as submitted by the defendants, with the following changes: · Close of discovery - July 1, 2012 · Expert disclosure deadlines: Defendants' expert disclosures - April 15, 2012 Rebuttals to defendants' disclosures - May 15, 2012 The statements in the plaintiff's proposed discovery plan as to the need for getting discovery from OSHA, and his intent to seek the aid of the court to do so if necessary, are noted. Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at the conference, Time Warner will amend ¶¶ 32 and 34 of its Answer to fairly meet the substance of the Complaint's allegations to Time Warner's agreement with PSNH and the application thereunder.

Dockets.Justia.com

PSNH will amend ¶ 36 of its answer to fairly meet the substance of the Complaint's allegations that Time Warner's action was a breach of the parties' agreement. Lapp, having received a fully

legible copy of the Complaint, will provide answers to ¶¶ 9, 17, and 28. These amendments shall be filed with the court no later

than March 23, 2011. Lapp's sixteenth affirmative defense (failure to mitigate damages) and twenty-third affirmative defense (waiver, estoppel, and laches) are stricken without prejudice to reinstatement on motion should discovery reveal a good-faith basis for them. Cross-claims. The plaintiff indicated his preliminary

position that he does not consent to the litigation of Time Warner's cross-claims against PSNH and Lapp in this action. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:7-g, IV(c). See

But the plaintiff also

indicated his intention to reconsider this position. Accordingly, counsel for the plaintiff and Time Warner shall confer and advise the court by no later than March 11, 2011, as to (1) whether the plaintiff consents to the litigation of thosecross-claims in this action and, if not, (2) whether the plaintiff and Lapp wish to submit briefing on the issue of whether § 507:7-g, IV(c), applies in federal court, or to have the court simply decide the issue based on the reasoning set forth in the conflicting decisions of Connors v. Suburban Propane 2

Co., 916 F. Supp. 73 (D.N.H. 1996) and Chapman v. Therriault, 1998 WL 1110691 (D.N.H. Apr. 13, 1998) and, if one or both of those parties wants to brief the issue, (3) an agreed-upon schedule for doing so. The deadline for PSNH to file its answer

to Time Warner's cross-claim is extended until 10 days after either the court is informed of the plaintiff's consent or the court issues a ruling that § 507:7-g, IV(c), does not apply here, as the case may be. Diversity Jurisdiction. Time Warner shall inform the court

by April 8, 2011, whether any of the partners of Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., or any of the members of Time Warner Cable LLC is a citizen of Maine. Lapp shall inform the court by

April 8, 2011, whether any of its members is a citizen of Maine. In providing this information, these parties are reminded that if any of their partners or members are themselves limited liability companies or partnerships, then the citizenship of each of the members or partners of those entities must also be determined. See Preferred Merchant Hood, LLC v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 0667, 2006 WL 1134915, at *1 (D.N.H. Apr. 25, 2006) (noting that, in determining diversity jurisdiction, "the citizenship of unincorporated associations," such as LLCs and partnerships, "must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be") (quotation marks omitted). 3

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. Such referral requests will

If the Magistrate Judge is recused,

alternate arrangements will be made.

4

SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Joseph N. Laplante United States District Judge Dated: cc: March 9, 2011

Francis G. Murphy, Jr., Esq. Harold J. Friedman, Esq. Martha C. Gaythwaite, Esq. Phillip S. Bixby, Esq. Beth G. Catenza, Esq. Michael M. Lonergan, Esq. Douglas N. Steere, Esq.

5