Kulbir Sidhu, M.D. v. Cancer Centers of North Carolina, P.C., et al
Filing
42
CONSOLIDATED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER - Counsel should review the attached order in its entirety for information pertaining to altered remaining case deadlines. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/10/2013. (Baker, C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
KULBIR SIDHU, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CANCER CENTERS OF NORTH
CAROLINA, P.C. and RALEIGH
HEMATOLOGY ONCOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:12-CV-603-FL
CONSOLIDATED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Upon review of the parties’ Joint Motion to Consolidate the Case Management Order and for
good cause shown, this Court hereby GRANTS and APPROVES said motion in its entirety and
hereby listed all deadlines in the above-styled case:
I. DISCOVERY
A.
By the time of the filing of this Motion, the parties shall have exchanged the
information required by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1).
B.
By the time of the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff shall have provided Defendants with
a supplemental privilege log.
C.
With limited exceptions, as stated below, all discovery-related matters in this action are
stayed from August 29, 2013 to January 6, 2014, inclusive, while Defendants’ lead
counsel is on a personal leave of absence.
D.
The limited exceptions to discovery activity shall be as follows:
ii.
Defendants shall serve any applicable disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
by November 4, 2013. Plaintiff 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
Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) or similar case law, within
fourteen (14) days after service of the disclosures upon her. 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. In the event that Defendants identifiy any expert witness pursuant
to this subparagraph, and only in such event, on or before December 4, 2013,
Plaintiff shall be entitled, as allowed by Rule 26(b)(2(D) to identify rebuttal
experts solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter as the
evidence offered by the Defendants’ expert(s).
ii.
Defendants shall answer Plaintiff’s pending discovery requests served on
August 1 and August 2, 2013, by October 1, 2013.
iv.
Except as specified herein, all other discovery between the parties shall be
stayed until January 6, 2014, inclusive. Nothing contained in these stipulations
shall prevent any of the parties to confer about any discovery production
disputes and, if necessary, seek an order to compel production of discovery in
the event of either party’s failure to comply with the above-listed discovery
schedule.
E.
All discovery shall be served in time to be completed by March 6, 2014 (reflecting the
four month and five day stay of discovery).
F.
Discovery in this case may be governed by a protective order to protect sensitive
documents and information that must be exchanged between the parties, including
medical records and medical data. 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.
i.
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 case for issuance of the protective order pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
ii.
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, 180-81 (4th Cir. 1988). Specifically, a proposed protective order 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 required; (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.”
iii.
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 favorable 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 the movant
override any constitutional or common law right of public access which may
attach to the documents, things, and/or information at issue.
iv.
The parties are directed to Section T of the court’s Electronic Case Filing
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, available online at
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”).
G.
The parties will undertake a good faith effort to identify electronically stored
information relevant to the claims and defenses in this case and will preserve such
information. The parties shall work together to identify a reasonable format for the
production of electronically stored information.
H.
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.
I.
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.
J.
There shall be no more than ten depositions by Plaintiff and ten by Defendants.
K.
Each deposition shall be limited to seven hours, unless otherwise agreed to by the
parties.
L.
Supplementations of disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 January 24, 2014. 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 will be excluded at trial
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
M.
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) concerning experts’ reports.
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.
Any potentially dispositive motions shall be filed by May 21, 2014. 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.
C.
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, 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.
D.
Any motion to continue must conform with the requirements set forth in Local Civil
Rule 6.1, and also includes 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.
A settlement procedure is required in virtually every case, to be conducted before the
close of discovery if the case is automatically selected for mediation pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 101.1a(b), or before the final pretrial conference if not automatically
selected.
B.
This case has been automatically selected for mediation and said selection affirmed by
the court at the Rule 16(b) conference. Reference is made to Local Civil Rule 101.1 et.
seq. for required deadlines.
C.
The deadline for the parties to complete mediation in this case is March 13, 2014.
D.
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.
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.
10th
IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of October, 2013.
_____________________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
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?