Black Dawg Sealcoat, LLC, et al v. Ameriseal Sealcoating, et al

Filing 16

ORDER approving(with changes 15 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 3-4 days. Case Track: Standard. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Summary Judgment Motions due by 3/1/2012. Joint Mediation statement due by 4/1/2012. (cmp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Black Dawg Sealcoat, LLC, et al.
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-00187-JL

Ameriseal Sealcoating, et al.

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on
July 27, 2011.
The Discovery Plan (document no. 15) is approved as
submitted, with the following changes:
• Close of discovery - March 1, 2012
• Plaintiff’s expert disclosure - January 15, 2012
Defendant’s expert disclosure - February 15, 2012
• Jury/Bench trial - Jury
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

A hearing on

this motion (document no. 6) will be held on September 19, 2011,
at 1:30 p.m.
On or before September 12, 2011, the parties shall jointly
file:
• a single timeline setting forth all pertinent dates,
times, and events, in whatever format the parties jointly
choose (in other words, the parties need not comply with
Local Rule 5.1(a) with respect to the timeline);

• a single Statement of Agreed Facts followed by a
Statement of Disputed Facts. The disputed facts are not
an invitation to advocacy (i.e., "The plaintiff can not
establish irreparable harm because. . . .” or "There is a
strong likelood of success on the merits because . . .
.”). The parties should simply list disputed facts they
intend to establish at the hearing, or which they contend
will not be established at the hearing.
On or before September 15, 2011, each party shall file:
• a witness list;
• an exhibit list; and
• proposed findings of fact and rulings of law.
Counsel shall confer before the hearing to identify all
areas of agreement and disagreement as to the admissibility of
each exhibit.
On or before 3:00 p.m. on September 16, 2011, the plaintiff
shall file a proposed order in compliance with Rule 65 and Local
Rule 65.1.

The order shall specifically address the amount of

the bond, if any, under Rule 65(c).
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

2

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.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated: July 28, 2011
cc:

Darrin R. Brown, Esq.
Douglas N. Steere, Esq.

3