Brewer v. Buford #495
Filing
45
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 9/17/2011. Dispositive Motions due by 10/18/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 5/20/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DANNY LEE BREWER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff
v.
K. BUFORD #495
Defendant
No. 3:11-0074
Judge Campbell/Brown
Jury Demand
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
I.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Defendant does not dispute the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee is the appropriate venue
and has jurisdiction for a cause of action of this nature.
II.
Parties’ Theories of Case
A.
Plaintiff’s Theory of Case.
The Plaintiff’s theory of
the case is set forth in the initial Complaint.
The Plaintiff
contends that while he was an inmate at the Rutherford County Jail
he was sexually assaulted on December 30, 2010, by Officer Buford.
B.
Defendant’s Theory of Case.
The Defendant denies the
allegations set forth in the Complaint.
III. Schedule of Pretrial Proceedings
A.
Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure.
This action is exempt from
Rule 26 disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(f).
B.
Meeting of Counsel and Parties to Discuss Settlement
Prospects. The parties are requested to discuss the possibility of
resolution of this case short of trial.
The parties are directed
to exchange offers and demands and the Defendant’s counsel should
provide the Court with a brief status of the progress of any
settlement conferences on or before August 1, 2011.
C.
Other Pretrial Discovery Matters. All discovery shall be
completed by September 17, 2011.
At the present time the parties
do not believe either side will use expert witnesses. The deadline
for
filing
dispositive
motions
shall
be
October
18,
2011.
Responses will be due 28 days after any dispositive motion is
filed.
These pleadings are limited to 25 pages.
Any reply shall
be filed 14 days after a response and is limited to five pages.
The
Plaintiff
has
written
a
letter
to
the
Court
complaining about he feels are unnecessary contacts by Officer
Buford (Docket Entry 24). The Plaintiff is reminded that copies of
all correspondence or pleadings he sends to the Court must also be
sent
to
opposing
counsel
with
an
appropriate
certificate
service:
I certify that a copy of the foregoing [insert name of
your document] has been served by [insert whether by mail
or certified mail] upon E. Evan Cope and Thomas S.
Santel, Jr. , Cope Hudson Reed & McCreary PLLC, 16 Public
Square North, Murfreesboro, TN 37130, on [insert date you
mailed your document].
_____________________________
Danny Lee Brewer ID 255889
Rutherford County Adult
Detention Center
940 New Salem Highway
Murfreesboro, TN 37129
[include your Warden’s
telephone number]
2
of
At the case management conference the Magistrate Judge
briefly discussed this issue with the parties.
The Magistrate
Judge is not in the business of managing the jail or attempting to
set Officer Buford’s official duties.
case,
undoubtedly
the
less
need
for
Given the nature of the
contact
and
certainly
unofficial contact, needs to be kept to a minimum consistent with
jail management.
The Defendant’s counsel advised that they had attempted
to take the deposition of a witness, but he had declined to testify
about the substance of the incident because of perceived threats.
The parties are free to file a motion to compel, if necessary.
The Plaintiff stated that he would need to take the
deposition of a former inmate. Plaintiff should file a motion with
the Court to take the deposition and in doing so provide the
witness’s
name
and
address
and
anticipates the witness will say.
a
brief
summary
of
what
he
The Magistrate Judge will then
be in a position to rule whether a subpoena for the witness should
issue.
IV.
Target Trial Date.
The Magistrate Judge believes that this
case will be ready for trial on or after March 21, 2012, and
estimates that it will take two days to try with a jury.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge
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?