Huggins v. NC Dept of Administration et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying as moot 89 Motion to Stay and granting 97 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order - Counsel should review the attached order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 07/20/2012. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

NO. 5: 10-CV-414-FL

LINDA K HUGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
N.C. DEPT. of ADMINISTRATION, N.C.
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION"
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)
)

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs pro se motion to stay (DE # 89) and
plaintiffs motion to amend the scheduling order (DE # 97), which motion was filed through counsel
who recently entered an appearance in this case. While the motion to amend the scheduling order
indicates that defendant objects to the same, defendant filed no response within the allotted time.
For good cause shown and where no objection separately has been lodged on the docket by
defendant, in its discretion the court grants plaintiff s motion to amend the scheduling order. Where
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her appeal, the pro se motion to stay pending appeal is denied as
moot. In light of the instant ruling, the court imposes the following deadlines.
•

All discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by September

1,2012, except for depositions, both fact and expert, which shall be completed by
October 1, 2012.
•

All other potentially dispositive motions shall be filed by December 1, 2012. All
motions to exclude testimony of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rules of
Evidence 702, 703, or 705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc., 509 U.S.

579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), or similar case
law, shall be filed by the deadline set for dispositive motions.
•

This case is set for a jury trial on the court's docket for that civil term of court
beginning May 20, 2013, at the United States Courthouse, New Bern, North
Carolina.

All other deadlines and directives as set forth in the case management order remain in full
force and effect.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's pro se motion to stay (DE # 89) is DENIED AS MOOT
and plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order (DE # 97) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of July, 2012.

~".;:~

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

2