Rose v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. et al (TV1)

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference reset for 1/22/2018 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3A - Knoxville before Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton. Jury Trial reset for 1/29/2018 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3A - Knoxville before Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 2/23/17. (JBR)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE GREG ADKISSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. KEVIN THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. JOE CUNNINGHAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. BILL ROSE, Plaintiff, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. CRAIG WILKINSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. ANGIE SHELTON, as wife and next of Kin on behalf of Mike Shelton, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 3:13-CV-505-TAV-HBG Lead Case Consolidated with No.: 3:13-CV-666-TAV-HBG as consolidated with No.: 3:14-CV-20-TAV-HBG No.: 3:15-CV-17-TAV-HBG No.: 3:15-CV-274-TAV-HBG No.: 3:15-CV-420-TAV-HBG JOHNNY CHURCH, Plaintiff, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DONALD R. VANGUILDER, JR., Plaintiff, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. JUDY IVENS, as sister and next of kin, on behalf of JEAN NANCE, deceased, Plaintiff, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. PAUL RANDY FARROW, Plaintiff, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Defendant. No.: 3:15-CV-460-TAV-HBG No.: 3:15-CV-462-TAV-HBG No.: 3:16-CV-635-TAV-HBG No.: 3:16-CV-636-TAV-HBG MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02. On January 30, 2017, the District Court granted [Doc. 136] the Defendant’s Motion for an Amended Scheduling Order and Bifurcated Trial Plan [Doc. 132]. 1 The District Court referred the above captioned cases to the undersigned for the purpose of holding a case management conference to address scheduling matters and set a trial date for Phase I of 1 For ease of reference, the Court refers to the docket entries in Adkisson, 3:13-CV-505. 2 trial. [Doc. 136 at 6-7]. On February 22, 2017, the Court conducted a case management conference. The parties agreed on a new trial date of January 29, 2018, for Phase I of trial. The parties also agreed that the deadline for adding additional parties to this litigation is March 17, 2017. The Court then took the parties’ scheduling proposals and other issues relating to scheduling under advisement. Based upon the status of discovery, scheduling concerns and proposals raised by the parties, and the agreed upon trial date, the Court sets forth the following amended schedule for Phase I of trial: 1. Amendment of pleadings and joiner of parties shall be due on or before March 17, 2017; 2. Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures shall be due on or before May 1, 2017; 3. Defendant’s expert disclosure shall be due on or before June 17, 2017; 4. Rebuttal expert disclosures are due no later than July 5, 2017; 5. All discovery (fact and expert) shall be completed by October 13, 2017; 6. The parties shall file all Daubert and summary judgment motions by October 27, 2017; 7. Final witness and exhibit lists are due no later than December 15, 2017; 8. The parties’ agreed-upon pretrial order shall be submitted by December 29, 2017; 9. Motions in liminie shall be filed no later than December 29, 2017; 10. Special requests for jury instructions are due by December 29, 2017; 3 11. Trial briefs are due on or before January 12, 2018; 12. A pretrial conference shall be conducted on January 22, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; and 13. Phase 1 of trial shall commence on January 29, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER: United States Magistrate Judge 4

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?