Flowserve US et al v. Optimux Controls et al

Filing 172

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER-granting 168 Motion for Scheduling Order ; Motions terminated: 168 MOTION for Schedulin g Order and Memorandum in Support and Objection to Defendants' Proposed Form of Order filed by Flowserve FCD, Flowserve US.; (Expert Discovery due by 4/21/2017., Motions due by 5/19/2017., Scheduling/Status Conference set for 5/24/2017 at 01:45 PM in Rm 8.100 before Judge Clark Waddoups). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 10/12/16. (jmr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION FLOWSERVE US INC., a Delaware corporation, and FLOWSERVE FCD CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER vs. OPTIMUX CONTROLS, LLC, a Florida company; TRIMTECK, LLC, a Florida company; and JAIME CONESA, a citizen of Florida, 2:13-CV-01073 District Judge Clark Waddoups Defendants. Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells This matter is before the Court for consideration of the parties’ competing Motions for a Scheduling Order. 1 On 9/23/2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend the Complaint and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for a scheduling order. 2 The Court instructed the parties to meet and confer and submit a stipulated amended scheduling order. 3 The parties have met and conferred but have been unable to stipulate to a scheduling order. The Court instructed the parties to “provide for all remaining deadlines, including a four month fact discovery period.” 4 1 Docket nos. 167, 168. Docket no. 163. 3 Id. 4 Id. at 6. 2 The parties each submitted their proposed scheduling order. Plaintiffs detailed their deadlines and provided for a four month fact discovery period. 5 Defendants’ proposed order left a number of items “To be determined” and provided substantively only for their own renewed motion for summary judgment and for a four month fact discovery period. 6 After review of both proposed orders, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Scheduling Order 7 and DENY Defendants’ Motion for a Scheduling Order. 8 Therefore, the following Scheduling Order shall govern this case. SCHEDULING ORDER Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following matters are scheduled. The times and deadlines set forth herein may not be modified without the approval of the Court and on a showing of good cause pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. **ALL TIMES 11:59 PM UNLESS INDICATED** 1. RULE 26(a)(2) REPORTS FROM EXPERTS DATE a. Parties bearing burden of proof 2/28/17 b Counter reports 3/24/17 2. OTHER DEADLINES a. 5 Fact Discovery: *Fact discovery shall be completed by February 3, 2017 on all discovery related to affiliate issues and TrimTeck and Jaime Conesa’s possible Docket no. 168. Docket no. 167. 7 Docket no. 168 8 Docket no. 167. 6 DATE 2/3/17* liability under the June 18, 2004 Settlement Agreement. However, Judge Waddoups’ December 7, 2015 Order (Docket No. 108) - limiting Plaintiffs’ discovery related to alter ego and ordering such costs to be borne by Plaintiffs – is still in effect. b. Last day for Expert discovery 4/21/17 c. Deadline for filing dispositive or potentially dispositive motions 5/19/17 If the parties do not intend to file dispositive or potentially dispositive deadlines, a scheduling conference will be held for purposes of setting a trial date. 5/24/17 1:45 P.M Deadline for filing partial or complete motions to exclude expert testimony 5/19/17 d. 3. SETTLEMENT/ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION a. 5. Evaluate case for Settlement/ADR on DATE 5/31/17 OTHER MATTERS Parties should file all Motions in Limine well in advance of the Final Pre Trial. CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Court Orders as follows: 1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Scheduling Order 9 is GRANTED. 2) Defendants’ Motion for Scheduling Order 10 is DENIED. 3) The Scheduling Order outlined above shall govern this case. SO ORDERED. Dated this 12th day of October 2016. BY THE COURT: ____________________________________ BROOKE C. WELLS United States Magistrate Judge 9 Docket no. 168. 10 Docket no. 167.

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?