Galloway v. AT&T, et al
Filing
21
ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER - For good cause shown, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss by defendant Phillips. Discovery due by 5/10/2013. Discovery in this case may be g overned by a protective order. Dispositive motions due by 6/7/13. Mediation deadline is 5/17/2013. The parties should review the attached order in its entirety for additional critical deadlines and information. After the court has ruled on any dispositive motion(s), the court will enter a scheduling order governing deadlines and procedures for final pretrial conference and trial, as appropriate. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 02/08/2013. (Baker, C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:12-CV-377-FL
ANGELIA P. GALLOWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T and VALERIE PHILLIPS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant Valerie Phillips’ motion to dismiss (DE #12),
and on the parties’ joint report and plan pursuant to Rule 26(f) (DE #20). As an initial matter, where
plaintiff has not responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and where the law is settled that
“individual defendants do not face personal liability under the Americans With Disabilities Act.”
Swain v. Westchester Academy, Inc., 170 F.Supp.2d 580, 583 (M.D.N.C. 2001) (citation omitted),
for good cause shown, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss by defendant Phillips (DE #12).
The following procedures and deadlines shall govern scheduling activities of the remaining parties.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), the parties conducted a pretrial conference
by telephone in this case on November 9, 2012, with plaintiff appearing pro se, and defendant
appearing through counsel Robert E. Thomas, Jr. After reviewing the parties’ joint report and plan,
filed November 28, 2012, and considering the issues raised at conference, the court orders the
following:
I. Discovery
A.
The parties have exchanged the information required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(1).
B.
Discovery will be necessary on the following subjects: reference is made to the
discovery proposed to be undertaken in the parties’ joint report and plan filed with
the court.
C.
All discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by May 10,
2013.
D.
The parties agree that discovery should not be conducted in phases nor be limited to
or focused on any particular issues.
E.
No party shall serve more than 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, to
any other party. Responses are due 30 days after service of those interrogatories.
F.
No party shall serve more than 25 requests for admissions to any other party.
Responses are due 30 days after service of those requests for admissions.
G.
There shall be no more than four depositions of fact by plaintiff and four depositions
of fact by defendant. Each party may depose any person who has been identified as
an expert witness.
H.
Each deposition shall be limited to 6 hours, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
I.
Disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), including reports
from retained experts, shall be served by plaintiff by February 8, 2013, and by
defendant by March 8, 2013. The parties shall serve any objections to such
disclosures, other than objections pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703,
or 705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho
2
Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) or similar case law, within fourteen
(14) days after service of the disclosures upon them. These objections should be
confined to technical objections related to the sufficiency of the written expert
disclosures (e.g., whether all of the information required by Rule 26(a)(2) has been
provided, such as lists of prior testimony and publications). These objections need
not extend to the admissibility of the expert’s proposed testimony. If such technical
objections are served, counsel shall confer or make a reasonable effort to confer
before filing any motion based on those objections.
J.
Supplementations of disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) shall
be served at such times and under such circumstances as required by that rule. In
addition, such supplemental disclosures shall be served by April 1, 2013. The
supplemental disclosures served forty (40) days before the deadline for completion
of all discovery must identify the universe of all witnesses and exhibits that probably
or even might be used at trial other than solely for impeachment. The rationale for
the mandatory supplemental disclosures forty (40) days before the discovery
deadline is to put opposing counsel in a realistic position to make strategic, tactical,
and economic judgments about whether to take a particular deposition (or pursue
follow-up “written” discovery) concerning a witness or exhibit disclosed by another
party before the time allowed for discovery expires. Counsel should bear in mind
that seldom should anything be included in the final Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial
disclosures that has not previously appeared in the initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures
or a timely Rule 26(e) supplement thereto; otherwise, the witness or exhibit probably
3
will be excluded at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
K.
To avoid the filing of unnecessary motions, the court encourages the parties to utilize
stipulations regarding discovery procedures. However, this does not apply to
extensions of time that interfere with the deadlines to complete all discovery, for the
briefing or hearing of a motion, or for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 29. Nor does this
apply to modifying the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)
concerning experts’ reports.
L.
Discovery in this case may be governed by a protective order. If the parties disagree
concerning the need for, and/or the scope or form of, a protective order, the party or
parties seeking such an order shall file an appropriate motion and supporting
memorandum. If the parties agree concerning the need for and scope and form of a
protective order, their counsel shall confer and then submit a jointly proposed
protective order as soon as is practicable.
1.
A jointly proposed protective order shall include, in the first paragraph, a
concise but sufficiently specific recitation of the particular facts in this case
that would provide the court with an adequate basis upon which to make the
required finding of good cause for issuance of the protective order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
2.
Any proposed protective order shall set out the procedure for filing under
seal confidential documents, things, and/or information, pursuant to the
requirements of Stone v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 855
F.2d 178, 180-181 (4th Cir. 1988). Specifically, a proposed protective order
4
shall include the following language: “Each time a party seeks to file under
seal confidential documents, things, and/or information, said party shall
accompany the request with a motion to seal and a supporting memorandum
of law specifying (a) the exact documents, things, and/or information, or
portions thereof, for which filing under seal is requested; (b) where it is
necessary for the court to determine the source of the public’s right to access
before a request to seal may be evaluated, whether any such request to seal
seeks to overcome the common law or the First Amendment presumption to
access; (c) the specific qualities of the material at issue which justify sealing
such material, taking into account the balance of competing interests in
access; (d) the reasons why alternatives to sealing are inadequate; and,
(e) whether there is consent to the motion. Finally, in addition to the motion
and supporting memorandum, said party must set out such findings in a
proposed order to seal for the court.”
3.
Before ruling on any motion to seal the court will give the public notice of
the motion and a reasonable opportunity to challenge it. While individual
notice is unwarranted, the court will docket the motion reasonably in advance
of deciding the issue, or, where applicable, the court will notify persons
present in courtroom proceedings of the motion. The court will rule
favorably upon any motion to seal only after carefully weighing the interest
advanced by the movant and those interests favoring public access to judicial
documents and records, and only upon finding that the interests advanced by
5
the movant override any constitutional or common law right of public access
which may attach to the documents, things, and/or information at issue.
4.
The parties are directed to Section T of the court’s Electronic Case Filing
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, available online at
http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/PDF_files/PolicyManual.pdf, for information
regarding how to file and serve sealed documents through the court’s Case
Management / Electronic Case Filing system (“CM/ECF”).
II. Motions
A.
Any motion requesting relief shall be accompanied at time of filing with a proposed
form of order, stating its requested relief.
B.
The deadline for any motion for leave to join additional parties or to otherwise
amend the pleadings has passed.
C.
All potentially dispositive motions shall be filed by June 7, 2013. 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.
D.
Any motion to compel discovery shall be filed and served within 30 days of the act
or omission in discovery complained of, after good faith effort between the parties
to resolve the matter, unless the time for filing such a motion is extended for good
cause shown. Prior to any filing, the complaining party shall convene a conference
among the parties and this court by telephone through the office of the case manager,
6
at (252) 638-8534. In the event of a discovery dispute of or relating to written
discovery, the party convening the conference shall send via facsimile transmittal
directed to the case manager at (252) 638-1529, the submissions in discovery most
directly bearing on the particular dispute, for the court’s review in advance of
telephonic conference. Motions to compel filed after the deadline and/or without
advance conference with the court, absent extenuating circumstances, summarily will
be denied. Disputes in discovery which are reduced to writing, timely filed, and
where conference with this court in advance of filing has been unable to resolve said
dispute, ordinarily will be referred to a magistrate judge for ruling.
E.
Any motion to continue must conform with the requirements set forth in Local Civil
Rule 6.1, and also include a detailed statement as to the reason for the requested
continuance or extension of time together with the proposed order. Continuances
will be granted only upon showing of good cause, particularly focusing upon the
evidence of diligence by the party seeking delay and of prejudice that may result if
the continuance is denied.
III. Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)
A.
The parties believe that mediation by a neutral mediator would be appropriate after
discovery has been conducted and propose a mediation deadline of May 17, 2013.
B.
If at any time a settlement is reached, it shall be reported immediately to this court.
The parties shall refer to Local Civil Rule 101.1e for their specific obligations.
7
IV. Pretrial and Trial Scheduling
A.
After the court has ruled on any dispositive motion(s), the court will enter a
scheduling order governing deadlines and procedures for final pretrial conference
and trial, as appropriate.
This case management order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing
of good cause, and all requirements set forth in the court’s Local Civil Rules governing pretrial and
trial procedures not altered herein shall be strictly observed.
SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of February, 2013.
_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?