LeBlanc v. NH State Prison, Warden et al
Filing
29
///ORDER approving 28 Discovery Plan; denying without prejudice 27 Discovery Plan and denying without prejudice 25 Motion to Compel. Summary Judgment Motions due by 7/8/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 3/15/201 3. Discovery deadline 7/12/2013. ( Summary Judgment Motions due by 7/8/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 3/15/2013. Discovery deadline 7/12/2013. Further, the court grants oral request and instructs the clerks office to terminate Phelps as a named defendant from the case. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(cmp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Daniel J. LeBlanc, Sr.
v.
Civil No. 12-cv-084-JL
Kevin Stevenson, et al.
O R D E R
On November 26, 2012, a preliminary pretrial conference
was held in this case.
Plaintiff appeared via telephone on
his own behalf; Attorney Lynmarie C. Cusack appeared for
defendants Kevin Stevenson, Pal Casio, Teresa Quint and
Janis Phelps; and Attorney Martin P. Honigberg appeared for
defendants Emily Bryant and Anthony Ramirez.
The court
approved the defendants’ joint proposed discovery plan (doc.
no. 28), with only minor amendments thereto.
The key deadlines in the discovery plan are summarized
in the chart below.
The parties concurred with respect to
each of the following deadlines.
Scheduling Designation
Deadline
Joinder of Additional
Parties
Plaintiff: December 1, 2012
Defendants: January 1, 2013
Third-Party Actions
December 1, 2012
Amendment of Pleadings
Plaintiff: December 1, 2012
Defendants: January 1, 2013
Offer
February 1, 2013
Experts and Experts'
Written Reports
Plaintiff: February 28, 2013
Defendants: May 1, 2013
Supplementation under
Rule 26(a)
As required by Rule 26(e)(2)
Motions to Dismiss
March 15, 2013
Motions for Summary
Judgment
July 8, 2013
Completion of Discovery
July 12, 2013
Challenges to Expert
Testimony
Trial Estimate (number of
days)
September 22, 2013
2-3 days
Two-week period beginning
November 5, 2013
Trial Date
In light of the court’s approval of defendant’s
proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 28), the court denies as
moot plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 27).
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to
compel (doc. no. 25).
Plaintiff filed the motion before
forwarding a formal discovery request to the defendants.
such, the motion is untimely.
As
The court denies the motion
(doc. no. 25) without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file
such a motion in the event defendants fail to provide
plaintiff with discovery to which plaintiff believes he is
entitled.
Defendants have agreed to construe the motion as
a formal discovery request and will respond to it within
thirty days from the date of the hearing.
Plaintiff made an oral motion to voluntarily dismiss
Janis Phelps as a named defendant in the case.
2
Rather than
require plaintiff to file a formal written request to
dismiss Phelps from the case, the court grants his oral
request and instructs the clerk’s office to terminate Phelps
as a named defendant from the case.
__________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
November 27, 2012
cc:
Daniel J. LeBlanc, Sr., pro se
Lynmarie C. Cusack, Esq.
Martin P. Honigberg, Esq.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?