Welcome Properties 201, LLC v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company

Filing 17

SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar. Discovery terminates August 22, 2017. Pretrial Motions due by September 21, 2017. Proposed Pretrial Order due to the Court by November 20, 2017. (sg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WELCOME PROPERTIES 201, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16-cv-1301 JCH/SMV

NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE
INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
SCHEDULING ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on a telephonic Rule 16 scheduling conference, held
on February 23, 2017. The parties’ Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan [Doc. 12]
is adopted, except as modified below.
Defendant has filed a motion requesting that the Court bifurcate the claims in this case
into the contractual claim and the extra-contractual claims (common law bad faith, breach of
fiduciary duty, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act) for all purposes, including trial.
[Doc. 13]. Defendant requests that the Court resolve the contractual claim before proceeding, if
necessary, to the extra-contractual claims; as such, Defendant requests that the Court stay
proceedings on the extra-contractual claims while the breach-of-contract claim proceeds. Id.
The Court will stay discovery with respect to the extra-contractual claims.1

At this time,

discovery will be limited to the contractual claim. Therefore, the deadlines set forth herein
pertain only to the contractual claim.

1

The Court’s stay of discovery has no bearing on the merits of Defendant’s pending motion to bifurcate the case,
which will be decided by the presiding judge.

In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan adopted in
compliance with the Civil Justice Reform Act, and pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(1), this
case is assigned to a “standard” (180-day) track classification.
Plaintiff shall be allowed until April 3, 2017, to join additional parties and amend the
pleadings (in compliance with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Defendant shall be
allowed until April 20, 2017, to join additional parties and amend the pleadings (in compliance
with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)).
The parties must disclose every expert witness who is expected to testify, even if the
expert is not required to submit an expert report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)–(C);
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 26.3(b).2 Plaintiff shall identify to all parties in writing any expert witness to be
used by Plaintiff at trial and provide expert reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or
summary disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(C)3 no later than June 23, 2017. All other parties shall
identify in writing any expert witness to be used by such parties at trial and provide expert
reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or summary disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) no
later than July 24, 2017. Rebuttal experts disclosed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii)
shall be disclosed within 30 days after the other party’s disclosure.

2

See also Blodgett v. United States, No. 2:06-CV-00565 DAK, 2008 WL 1944011, at *5 (D. Utah May 1, 2008).

3

Summary disclosures are, under certain circumstances, required of treating physicians. Farris v. Intel Corp., 493
F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1180 (D.N.M. 2007) (Treating physicians who do not submit Rule 26 expert reports may only
testify “based on . . . personal knowledge and observations obtained during [the] course of care and treatment[.]”);
Blodgett, 2008 WL 1944011, at *5 (“[T]reating physicians not disclosed as experts are limited to testimony based on
personal knowledge and may not testify beyond their treatment of a patient.”).

2

The termination date for discovery is August 22, 2017, and discovery shall not be
reopened, nor shall case management deadlines be modified, except by an order of the Court
upon a showing of good cause. This deadline shall be construed to require that discovery be
completed on or before the above date. Service of interrogatories, requests for production, and
requests for admission shall be considered timely only if the responses are due prior to the
deadline. The parties will be permitted 25 requests for production by each party to any other
party. The Court will not limit the number of requests for admission served by each party at this
time. A notice to take deposition shall be considered timely only if the deposition takes place
prior to the deadline. The pendency of dispositive motions shall not stay discovery.
Motions relating to discovery shall be filed with the Court and served on opposing parties
by September 11, 2017. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7 for motion practice requirements and timing of
responses and replies. This deadline shall not be construed to extend the 21-day time limit in
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 26.6 (Party served with objection to discovery request must file motion to
compel within 21 days of service of objection. Failure to file motion within 21 days constitutes
acceptance of the objection.).
Pretrial motions, other than discovery motions, shall be filed with the Court and served
on opposing party by September 21, 2017.

See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7 for motion practice

requirements and timing of responses and replies. Any pretrial motions, other than discovery
motions, filed after the above dates shall, in the discretion of the Court, be considered untimely.

3

If documents are attached as exhibits to motions, affidavits or briefs, those parts of the
exhibits that counsel want to bring to the attention of the Court must be highlighted in
accordance with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.6.
Counsel are directed to file a consolidated final Pretrial Order as follows: Plaintiff to
Defendant on or before November 6, 2017. Defendant to Court on or before November 20,
2017. Counsel are directed that the Pretrial Order will provide that no witnesses except rebuttal
witnesses whose testimony cannot be anticipated, will be permitted to testify unless the name of
the witness is furnished to the Court and opposing counsel no later than 30 days prior to the time
set for trial. Any exceptions thereto must be upon order of the Court for good cause shown.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge

4