East Coast Sheet Metal Fabricating Corp. v. Autodesk, Inc.

Filing 44

ORDER approving (with changes) 34 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 14 days. Case Track: Complex. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Summary Judgment Motions due by 10/3/2014.(cmp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
East Coast Sheet Metal
Fabricating Corp.
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-00517-JL

Autodesk, Inc.
ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on
July 17, 2013.
The Discovery Plan (document no. 34) is approved as
submitted, with the following changes:
• Close of fact and expert discovery1 - October 3, 2014
• Expert challenges - November 28, 2014
• Summary judgment deadline2 - October 3, 2014
• Jury trial - February, 2015

1

The parties are advised that the court considers the
deadline for the completion of discovery to be a deadline by
which discovery is to be completed--not a deadline by which
discovery is to be served. Propounding parties shall ensure that
enough time remains in the discovery period for the recipient to
provide its responses by that deadline. Where Federal Rule
33(b)(2), 34(b)(2), or 36(a)(3) would call for a response after
the deadline, the recipient need not provide a response.
2

Notwithstanding the court’s adoption of the plaintiff’s
proposed summary judgment deadline, the parties may move for
summary judgment on any issue at any time prior to that deadline.
They are advised, however, that any motions for summary judgment
that are directed at discrete issues and filed well before the
close of discovery are unlikely to receive expeditious treatment.

Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at
the conference, the following are stricken without prejudice to
being reinstated on request if warranted by the evidence:
• the following affirmative defenses:

estoppel, waiver,

statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction.
The defendant will amend ¶¶ 22, 29, 39, 71 and 87 of its
Answer to clearly indicate its position with respect to the
corresponding allegation(s) of the complaint.
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

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 22, 2013

George C. Summerfield, Esq.
Rolf O. Stadheim, Esq.
Steven R. Pederson, Esq.
Kenneth C. Bartholomew, Esq.
Michael S. Lewis, Esq.
Thomas Tracy Aquilla, Esq.
Damian R. Laplaca, Esq.
Richard C. Nelson, Esq.
Donald J. Perreault, Esq.
Robert F. Callahan, Jr., Esq.

3