Harris v. Stellar Recovery

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM DECISION finding as moot 37 Defendants' Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines; granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; SCHEDULING ORDER:(Discovery due by 3/12/2015. Motions due by 6/29/201 5. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/17/2015 at 02:30 PM in Rm 7.100 before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead. 2 Day Jury Trial set for 12/7/2015 at 08:30 AM in Rm 7.100 before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead). Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 01/15/2015. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
HARRY HARRIS,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:13-cv-00876-DBP
v.
STELLAR RECOVERY,

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendant.

I.

INTRODUCTION
The parties consented to this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docket No.

10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)
and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by repeatedly calling Plaintiff from an
automatic telephone dialing system and attempting to collect a debt belonging to someone else
named Kevin. (Dkt. No. 17.)
The Court now considers an irregular set of motions. First, Defendant filed a motion to
extend the discovery deadlines. (Dkt. 37.) This motion was not opposed. Next, Plaintiff filed his
own motion to extend discovery deadlines with a supporting affidavit. (Dkt. 38, 39.) Defendant
filed a response. (Dkt. 40.) Finally, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Dkt. 41.)
II. MOTIONS TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
Oddly, the present dispute is not actually a dispute at all. The parties agree that all dates
should be extended according to the proposal set forth in Plaintiff’s motion. (See Dkt. 38, 40.)
The parties are reminded of their professional obligation under the Utah Standards of
Professionalism and Civility, particularly Standard Ten: “Lawyers shall make good faith efforts
to resolve by stipulation undisputed relevant matters . . .” Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil
1

Procedure 29 and District of Utah Rule 7-1 provide an express basis for stipulating to proposed
amendments to discovery schedules. Counsel is encouraged to follow these procedures in the
future. Nonetheless, the Court does not wish to add to any delay in this case. Thus, Plaintiff’s
motion to extend discovery deadlines is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion
to extend the discovery deadlines is now moot because the deadlines are not extended beyond the
date to which Defendant sought to extend them in its motion.
The scheduling order is modified as indicated below. All dates not set forth below remain
unchanged.
**ALL TIMES 4:30 PM UNLESS INDICATED**
2.

DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS
j.

4.

DATE

Close of fact discovery:

03/12/15

RULE 26(a)(2) REPORTS FROM EXPERTS

DATE

a.

Parties bearing burden of proof

04/16/15

b.

Counter reports

04/30/15

5.

OTHER DEADLINES

DATE

a.

Last day for Expert discovery

05/29/15

b.

Deadline for filing dispositive or potentially dispositive
motions

06/29/15

c.

Deadline for filing partial or complete motions to exclude
expert testimony

06/29/15

7.

TRIAL AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL
a.

TIME

DATE

Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures 1
Plaintiff

09/29/15

1

The Parties must disclose and exchange any demonstrative exhibits or animations with the
26(a)(3) disclosures.
2

Defendant
c.

Special Attorney Conference 2 on or before

10/27/15

d.

Settlement Conference 3 on or before

10/27/15

e.

Final Pretrial Conference

f.

Trial

Length

ii. Jury Trial
8.

10/13/15

2 days

2:30 p.m.

11/17/15

8:30 a.m.

12/07/15

OTHER MATTERS
Counsel should contact chambers staff of the judge presiding in the case regarding
Markman motions to determine the desired process for filing and hearing of such
motions. Parties should file all such motions and Motions in Limine well in advance of
the Final Pre Trial.
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to extend the

discovery deadlines. (Dkt. 38.) The Court finds that Defendant’s motion to extend the discovery
deadlines is now moot. (Dkt. 37.)
Signed January 15, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2

The Special Attorneys Conference does not involve the Court. Counsel will agree on voir dire
questions, jury instructions, a pre-trial order and discuss the presentation of the case. The parties
should schedule witnesses to avoid gaps and disruptions. The parties should mark exhibits in a
way that does not result in duplication of documents. The pre-trial order should include any
special equipment or courtroom arrangement requirements.
3
The Settlement Conference does not involve the Court unless the Court enters a separate order.
Counsel must ensure that a person or representative with full settlement authority or otherwise
authorized to make decisions regarding settlement is available in person or by telephone during
the Settlement Conference.
3