Lewis v. Meridian Consulting Group, LLC

Filing 11

ORDER approving (with changes) 9 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 4-5 days. Case Track: Standard. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Summary Judgment Motions due by 2/1/2012. Mediation Follow Up on 10/17/2011. (ko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kari Lewis
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-00270-JL

Meridian Consulting Group, LLC

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on
July 27, 2011.
The Discovery Plan (document no. 9) is approved as
submitted, with the following changes:
• Close of discovery - February 1, 2012
• Close of expert discovery - February 1, 2012
Plaintiff’s expert disclosures - November 1, 2011
Defendant’s expert disclosures - January 9, 2012
Supplementation of disclosures - February 1, 2012
• Summary judgment deadline - February 1, 2012
• Jury/Bench trial - June 2012
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:

• Defendant’s laches, waiver, and estoppel defenses (see
document no. 6, defenses no. 5 and 6)
• Plaintiff’s laches, waiver, and estoppel defenses to the
counterclaims (see document no. 8, defenses no. 3 and 4)
Jurisdiction.

As discussed at the conference, defendant

shall file with the court, on or before August 17, 2011, a list
of Meridian Consulting Group, LLC’s members and their states of
citizenship, for use in determining whether this court has
subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
See Pramco, LLC ex rel. CFSC Consortium, LLC v. San Juan Bay
Marina, Inc., 435 F.3d 51, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2006).
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
2

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
cc:

July 28, 2011

Jon Nathan Strasburger, Esq.
Linda S. Johnson, Esq.
Patrick H. Taylor, Esq.

3