SHARRATT v. MURTHA

Filing 70

SHARRATT v. MURTHA

Doc. 70

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ZACHARY DILBECK, Plaintiff, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, ET AL. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 08-956

INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND NOW, this 22nd day of October, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above captioned civil action is placed under Rule 16.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for pretrial proceedings and all provisions of the Rule will be strictly enforced. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall confer with their clients prior to the Post-Discovery Status Conference, or any other status conference, in order to obtain authority for the purpose of participating in settlement negotiations to be

conducted by the court. their principals to be at all

Counsel are encouraged to appear with such by conferences, telephone to or instruct the the

principals

available

facilitate

amicable resolution of all litigation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with the

provisions of Local Rule 16.1.2.A. shall be completed as follows:

Dockets.Justia.com

A.

Initial Case Management Plan 1) This case is designated as a Track One action as that

term is defined in Local Rule 16.1.3. 2) Stipulation The parties shall complete and file the required selecting ADR process, identify their selected

neutral and the date on which the selected ADR process will occur, on or before November 3, 2008. 3) Any motion to amend pleadings shall be filed on or

before November 21, 2008. 4) 21, The parties shall complete all fact discovery by April All interrogatories, depositions, requests for

2009.

admissions and requests for production shall be served within sufficient time to allow responses to be complete and filed prior to the close of discovery. The Court WILL NOT routinely grant The Court will extend the exceptional circumstances.

extensions of the discovery period. discovery cut off date only in

Pendency of the ADR Process DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

2

5)

A Post-Discovery Status Conference is scheduled for

Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.. The parties shall be prepared to discuss settlement at this Conference. The parties

are also advised that the court will schedule the following at this Conference: (1) deadlines for completion of expert

discovery, if applicable; (2) dates by which dispositive motions should be filed and responded to; (2) dates by which the parties' pre-trial statements should be filed; (3) dates by which motions in limine should be filed and responded to; (4) dates by which Daubert motions should be filed and responded to; (5) dates on which argument on Daubert motions and motions in limine shall be heard; (6) date for the final pre-trial conference; and (7) trial dates.

3

B.

Motion Practice 1) Motions Not Requiring Briefs No brief is required by either movant or respondent

unless otherwise directed by the court with respect to the following motions: (a) For extension of time for the performance of an act required or allowed to be done; (b) To continue a Post-Discovery Status Conference; (c) To amend pleadings; (d) To file supplemental pleadings; (e) For a substitution of parties; and (f) To compel discovery. Any of the above motions not requiring briefs shall be accompanied by a proposed order stating the relief requested by said motion. All other motions and responses thereto, must be The Clerk shall not accept for filing

accompanied by a brief.

any motion, application or objection requiring a brief not accompanied by such brief without permission of the court.

4

C.

Procedure Governing Discovery Disputes The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for liberal

discovery.

In the absence of a privilege, relevancy is the test Fed.R.Civ.P.

for determining whether material is discoverable. 26(b)(1).

This rule is construed broadly and includes "any

matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised only in the pleadings, but rather is designed to define and clarify the issues. Id. at 351. Nor is discovery objectionable on the Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

ground that the information sought would be inadmissable at trial, so long as the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, should it be determined that, given the needs of the case, compliance with a discovery request would be

burdensome or expensive, this will not necessarily be grounds for non-production, but it will impact on the court's decision as to who must bear the cost of production.

5

In accordance with Local Rule 7.1.C., in the event a dispute arises over a discovery request, all counsel are required to confer in good faith in an effort to resolve the issue without court intervention. for the party It shall be the obligation of the attorney court intervention to initiate such

seeking

conferences and to do so promptly.

Refusal to confer in good

faith may subject counsel to sanctions, such as the imposition of costs, including the attorney's fees of opposing counsel, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). In the event, however, that the parties to this action are unable to informally resolve a discovery dispute and court intervention is sought, the movant shall file a Motion to Compel Discovery (or Protective Order if such is the case). Attached to

the Motion shall be a proposed Order of Court in which the moving party shall set forth, in specific detail, its proposal for completely resolving the discovery dispute. Within five (5)

working days after receipt of the motion, the respondent, either singularly or in conjunction, shall file a written response. Attached to the response shall be respondent's proposed Order of Court.

6

The court will sign, without modification, the one proposed Order of Court which, in the judgment of the court, is most reasonable under the circumstances. BY THE COURT: s/Gary L. Lancaster Gary L. Lancaster, United States District Judge cc: All Counsel of Record

7