Cutler v. Carbonneau et al

Filing 9

ORDER approving 7 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 3 - 5 days. Case Track: Standard. Plaintiffs excessive force claim in Count I, which is broughtagainst defendant Carbonneau only, shall be construed to state aclaim for deprivation of plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Summary Judgment Motions due by 10/21/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 12/17/2012. Mediation Follow Up on 6/17/2013.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kirk Cutler
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-00350-JL

Christopher Carbonneau, et al.

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on
October 29, 2012.
The Discovery Plan (document no. 7) is approved as
submitted, with the following changes:
• Close of discovery - September 15, 2013
• Summary judgment deadline - 120 days prior to final
pretrial conference
• Jury trial - March, 2014
If requested by the plaintiff, the defendants will amend ¶¶
4-5, 20, 33, 36 (Carbonneau) and ¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 16-18 (County) of
their Answers to clearly indicate their positions with respect to
the corresponding Complaint paragraphs.

Based upon the

discussion between the court and counsel at the conference,
plaintiff’s excessive force claim in Count I, which is brought
against defendant Carbonneau only, shall be construed to state a
claim for deprivation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff need not amend his complaint to so specify.

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.
Oral argument on dispositive motions.

Counsel and the

parties should anticipate that oral argument will be held on all
dispositive motions.

Any party preferring that such a motion be

decided on the written filings alone should so notify the clerk.
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:
cc:

October 30, 2012

Charles G. Douglas, III, Esq.
Andrew B. Livernois, Esq.
Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.

3