Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Home Brands, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting in part 34 Motion to Amend Discovery Deadlines. Text of Order: Granted in part. Motions for summary judgment due January 15, 2014; Expert Challenges due April 1, 2014. All other deadlines as outlined. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of New Hampshire
Civil Action No. 12-CV-152-JL
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY
COMPANY a/s/o MARK & JENNIFER SALVUCCI,
Plaintiff

)
)
)
)

v.

)
)

HOME BRANDS, INC., et als,
Defendants

)
)
DISCOVERY ORDER

After allowing Defendant's Motion to Extend, the following
amended discovery schedule is approved:

• Mandatory Rule 26(a) (1) disclosures -February 1, 2013
• Completion of fact discovery - September 5, 2013
• Plaintiff's expert disclosure -September 19, 2013
• Defendant's expert disclosure -October 16, 2013
• Expert deposition deadline -November 27, 2013
• Joinder of additional parties:
• Plaintiff - July 3, 2013
• Defendants - July 31, 2013
• Third-party actions - July 31, 2013
• DeBenedetto disclosures - May 29, 2013
• Amendment of pleadings:
• Plaintiff - May 1, 2013

;s-

• Defendants - May 29, 2013

• Motions for summary judgment - January ~, 2014
• Jury Trial - June 2014

, £ '1vr

cit ttJ/tNtfh

-

ft-tr4 I 1

'(} OILj

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
normally be granted.

If the Magistrate Judge is recused,

alternate arrangements will be made.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:
cc:

5/21/13

Dana M. Horton, Esq.
Danielle Andrews Long~ Esq.
Michael S. Kinson, Esq.
Keebaugh & Sons, pro se
Gary Keebaugh, pro se

Judge