Kreger v. Norfolk Southern Raillway Company

Filing 16

ORDER: This matter being heard on the parties joint motion to extend discovery. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the motion is granted. The new discovery schedule is as follows: 1. Disclosure of plaintiff's expert witnesses and reports: 9/1/12. 2. Plaintiff to make settlement demand 9/15/12. 3. Disclosure of defendant's expert witnesses and reports 1/1/12. Motions terminated: 13 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 7/2/12. (kje1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ROCHELLE DRIESSEN,
:

Case No. 3:12-cv-91

:

District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Plaintiff,
vs.

WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK,

:

Defendants.

SCHEDULING ORDER

This case came on for a scheduling conference, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, by
telephone at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, July 2, 2012.

Pro se Plaintiff Rochelle Driessen and

Defendant’s attorneys, Austin Musser and Shannah Morris, participated in the telephone
conference.
The parties have not unanimously consented to plenary magistrate judge authority under
28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, the case will remain on the trial docket of District Judge
Walter Rice as originally assigned, but on Magistrate Judge Newman’s docket for all pretrial
purposes, up to but not including the final pretrial conference. The parties are reminded that they
have the continuing right to consent to magistrate jurisdiction until the case is tried. Failure to
consent will not have any adverse substantive consequences.
The Court sets the following filing deadlines:
1.

Required disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1):

1

July 6, 2012

2.

“Cut-off” date for filing of1:
a. Motions to amend pleadings and/or to add parties:
b. Motions directed to pleadings (including motions to
dismiss filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12)

3.

July 20, 2012
July 27, 2012

Dates to reveal the identity of expert witnesses, along with a copy of each expert’s report
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) are:
a.
b.

Plaintiff’s Primary Experts:
Defendant’s Primary Experts:
All Rebuttal Experts:

**No Experts are Expected**

4.

Date to disclose identity of lay witnesses:

July 27, 2012

5.

Status Conference with Magistrate Judge Newman:

6.

“Cut-off” deadline for discovery2:

7.

“Cut-off” date for filing of motions not directed to pleadings:
(including motions for summary judgment)

October 15, 2012

8.

Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order filed by parties no later than:

January 18, 2013

9.

Trial Exhibits to be exchanged by:

January 25, 2013

10.

Final Pretrial Conference:

11.

Bench trial on the merits, beginning:

September 20, 2012,
at 10:30 a.m.
October 1, 2012

February 12, 2013
At 5:00 p.m., in Judge
Rice’s Chambers
February 12, 2013,
at 9:30 a.m.,
in Courtroom #1

1

Following these dates, amendments to pleadings and motions directed to pleadings may
be made only upon leave of Court, with notice to opposing counsel.
2

Absent agreement among counsel or approval by the Court, there will be no continuation
of discovery beyond the discovery “cut-off” date. If counsel extend discovery by agreement,
there will be no supervision or intervention by the Court, such as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 request for
sanctions, without a showing of extreme circumstances. Parties who undertake to extend
discovery beyond the “cut-off” date do so at the risk the Court may not permit its completion
prior to trial.
2

The parties are reminded of their continuing duty to update their discovery responses
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). This includes their responses to initial disclosures pursuant to
Rule 26(a), as well as interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. No
trial setting will be vacated due to the failure to complete discovery, except under the most
unusual of circumstances.
The term “discovery” includes any depositions for presentation at trial in lieu of
appearance. The discovery “cut-off” deadline means that all discovery must be concluded, as
opposed to simply requested, by the discovery “cut-off” date. Purely as a hypothetical example,
a request for the production of documents, with a 30-day response time, must be served upon the
opposing party in sufficient time to allow said party to respond prior to the discovery “cut-off”
date.

No extension of the discovery “cut-off” deadline will be allowed if such extension would

impact adversely on the trial date set herein.
If the parties desire assistance, they are directed to contact Gayle Hays at [phone]
in order to set up a status conference. If the parties settle this case on their own, they are directed
to inform the Court as soon as possible.
Prior to filing motions to compel discovery, the parties are directed to call Gayle Hays at
[phone] to set up a status conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

July 3, 2012

3