Ross Eriksmoen, Inc. v. Continental Resources, Inc.
Filing
70
ORDER Continuing Trial and Final Pretrial Conference; Extending Discovery and Briefing Deadlines by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr.: Jury Trial reset for 5/2/2016 at 09:30 AM in Bismarck Courtroom 1 before Judge Daniel L. Hovland (10 days, #2 on civil calendar). Previously set for 9/14/2015. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 4/19/2016 at 11:00 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. Previously set for 9/1/2015. Dispositive Motions due by 1/8/2016. Defenda nt's Motion to Amend Counterclaim to Seek Punitive Damages due by 1/8/2016. Defendant's Reply to 48 MOTION for Sanctions For Spoliation due by 4/20/2015. Defendant's Reply to 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment On Counterclaim For Breach Of Master Service Contract due by 6/1/2015. Defendant's Response to 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment due by 6/1/2015. (KT)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
Ross Eriksmoen, Inc., d/b/a/
T&R Transport,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Continental Resources, Inc.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE;
EXTENDING DISCOVERY AND
BRIEFING DEADLINES
Case No. 4:13-cv-107
On April 3, 2015, the court held a telephone conference to discuss the status of the abovecaptioned case and the potential need to continue the existing trial date. Michael D. Nelson
appeared on plaintiff’s behalf. Robert W. Dace appeared on defendant’s behalf. Based on the
discussions during the call and during a status conference regarding a discovery dispute held on
April 2, 2015 and on the status of the court’s calendar, the court determined it was necessary to
continue the existing trial date. After the court made that decision, the parties agreed to extend
certain discovery and briefing deadlines.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that the jury trial set for September 14, 2015, is continued
to May 2, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. in Bismarck before Judge Hovland. The case is set for ten (10) days
of trial. The final pretrial conference set for September 1, 2015, is continued to April 19, 2016, at
11:00 a.m. by telephone before Judge Miller. The court will initiate the conference call.
In addition, the court ORDERS the existing Scheduling/Discovery Plan AMENDED as
follows:
1.
The parties shall have until January 8, 2016 to file any additional dispositive motions
1
(summary judgment as to all or part of the case). The summary judgment motions
that have been filed (Docket Nos. 50 and 59) will remain pending for decision by
Judge Hovland.
2.
Defendant shall have until January 8, 2016 to refile a motion to amend its
counterclaim to add a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff shall file its response
within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of defendant’s motion. Defendant shall file
its reply within fourteen (14) days of the filing of plaintiff’s response. Defendant’s
pending “Motion to Amend Counterclaim to Add Exemplary Damages Claim”
(Docket No. 31) will be terminated and the court will not consider the punitive
damages issue until the motion is refiled.
Further, the parties are ORDERED to file a stipulation establishing new deadlines for fact
discovery, expert witness disclosures, expert witness depositions, and any other necessary discovery
deadlines. If the parties are unable to agree on these deadlines, they shall contact the court to request
assistance establishing the deadlines.
Finally, the court ORDERS the existing briefing deadlines extended as follows:
1.
Defendant shall have until April 20, 2015 to file its reply to Defendant’s Motion for
Sanctions for Spoliation (Docket No. 48).
2.
Defendant shall have until June 1, 2015 to file its response to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 59) and it reply to Defendant’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 50).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2015.
2
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
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?