Peatfield v. Homans Associates, LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER: Plaintiff to file an amended complaint; Defendant to Answer; Parties to file a revised Joint Discovery Plan. Amended Complaint due by 3/20/2012. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Gregory Peatfield
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-00559-JL

Homan Associates, LLC, et al.

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on
January 19, 2012.
Within 60 days of the date of this order, the plaintiff will
file an amended complaint.

Counsel is cautioned to plead only

cognizable claims under applicable law, and with the specificity
required under both the applicable substantive law and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants’ answer shall fully comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and shall not raise objection or assert
positions not recognized under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Further, the answer will assert only cognizable

affirmative defenses supported by evidence.
The parties will file a revised Joint Discovery Plan under
Rule 26, with discovery completion deadlines that precede the

summary judgement deadlines, and a summary judgment deadline at
least 120 days before the final pretrial conference.
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.

Such referral requests will

2

normally be granted.

If the Magistrate Judge is recused,

alternate arrangements will be made.

SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated: January 19, 2012
cc:

Shenanne Ruth Tucker, Esq.
Gregory A. Ramsey, Esq.

3