Gilmore v. Roane County et al

Filing 67

ORDER 1. The parties SHALL make their initial disclosures on or before February 7, 2014;1 and 2. The parties SHALL conduct their discovery conference as soon after that date as is practicable.Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 01/14/2014. (KAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
SHASTA LASHAY GILMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROANE COUNTY, TENN., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-CV-124
(BUNNING/GUYTON)

ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
The parties appeared before the undersigned on January 13, 2014. At that time, the
Plaintiff made an oral motion for entry of a scheduling order. The Court declined the Plaintiff’s
motion and noted that the District Judge will set the schedule for this case. However, the Court
inquired as to the status of this case and found that it was appropriate for certain pretrial
deadlines to be set at this time.
The parties represented that they have not yet conducted a discovery conference pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), despite the Rule’s admonition that they do so “as soon as practicable.” In
addition, the parties represented that they had not yet made initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1).

Based upon the parties’ representations and pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, it is ORDERED:
1. The parties SHALL make their initial disclosures on or before February 7, 2014;1 and
2. The parties SHALL conduct their discovery conference as soon after that date as is
practicable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:
/s H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

1

It is the Court’s expectation that the initial disclosures will be made by both parties regardless of whether the
Defendants’ file a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.
2