Lamb v. Wallace, et al
ORDER granting 68 Motion For Adjustments To The Court's Case Management Order. Discovery in this case may be governed by a protective order. Discovery due by 3/15/2018. Mediation deadline reset for 3/15/2018. Motions due by 4/15/2018. 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. Counsel should review the attached order in its entirety for additional critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 4/7/2017. (Edwards, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BLAKE WALLACE, et al.,
Case No: 7:16-cv-44-FL
Hon. Louise W. Flanagan
ADJUSTED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties Joint Motion for Adjustments to the
Court’s Case Management Order. The parties have shown good cause and the Motion is
GRANTED. The revised case management order is as follows:
The parties shall exchange by May 15, 2017, any further information the
information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1).
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.
All fact discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by
March 15, 2018.
The parties did not raise any issues regarding electronically stored information
and privileged materials.
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
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.
There shall be no more than 15 depositions by each plaintiff and 15 by each
Each deposition shall be limited to 7 hours, unless otherwise agreed by the
Disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), including
reports from retained experts, shall be served by plaintiffs by January 15,
2018, and by defendants by February 15, 2018. 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 Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
or similar case law, within 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 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.
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 February
2, 2018. The supplemental disclosures served 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 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).
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.
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.
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).
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 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
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.”
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 the movant override
any constitutional or common law right of public access which may
attach to the documents, things, and/or information at issue.
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/pdfs/cmecfPolicyManual.pdf, for
information regarding how to file and serve sealed documents through
the court’s Case Management / Electronic Case Filing system
Any motion requesting relief shall be accompanied at time of filing with a
proposed form of order, stating its requested relief.
Any further motion for leave to join additional parties or to otherwise amend
the pleadings shall be filed by plaintiff by April 15, 2017.
All potentially dispositive motions shall be filed by April 15, 2018. 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.
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.
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 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 Alternative Dispute Rule 101.1a(b), or before the final
pretrial conference if not automatically selected.
This case has been automatically selected for mediation. Reference is made to
Local Alternative Dispute Rule 101.1 et seq. for required deadlines.
If at any time a settlement is reached, it shall be reported immediately to this
court. The parties shall refer to Local Alternative Dispute Rule 101.1e for their
IV. Pretrial and Trial Scheduling
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,
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 7th day of _____, 2017.
Hon. Louise W. Flanagan
United States District Court 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?