Flowserve US et al v. Optimux Controls et al

Filing 173

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER- denying #167 Motion for Scheduling Order. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 10/12/16. (jmr)

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.