Swietlik et al v. Shultz et al
Filing
47
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' JOINT MOTION 46 TO EXTEND DEADLINES AND TRIAL DATE. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 5/22/2013 01:30 PM in Martinsburg District Judge Courtroom, 2nd Floor before District Judge Gina M. Groh. Scheduling order 35 is hereby VACATED. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 4/12/2013. (tlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
DARIUSZ SWIETLIK and
BARBARA SWIETLIK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-07
(JUDGE GROH)
RANDOLPH CARL SHULTZ,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES AND
TRIAL DATE
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines and Trial Date [Doc. 46]. In support of the
motion, the parties assert that “[t]he depositions of the Plaintiff’s treating physicians and
experts have not yet been taken or scheduled.” Additionally, Dariusz Swietlik continues to
be treated by his neurosurgeons, and his treating physicians have not reached their final
opinions in this matter. Therefore, “Plaintiffs need additional time in which to permit Mr.
Swietlik to continue treating, and his physicians to formulate final opinions.” Defendant also
will need additional time to have “an opportunity to review these opinions and, if necessary,
disclose an additional expert witness.”
After reviewing the parties’ joint motion, the Court FINDS good cause to grant it.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines and Trial
Date [Doc. 46]. The Court hereby VACATES the current Scheduling Order [Doc. 35].
Additionally, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 26(f) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure
("LR Civ P") 16.01 and 26.01 it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR Civ P 16.01(c), the parties shall submit
to this Court a written report on the results of the initial discovery meeting on or
before May 13, 2013. This report shall include the parties' report on those matters
set forth in LR Civ P 16.01(b)(1-5) and 16.01(c) and the parties' discovery plan as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). The parties may refer to Form 52 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for an example of a report on a planning meeting. However,
the parties should be certain to supplement Form 52 with LR Civ P 16.01(b)(1-5)
and 16.01(c) disclosures. In addition, the parties MUST complete and return the
“Scheduling Order Checklist” attached to this Order. The parties' report on their
meeting shall be considered by this Court as advisory only. Parties and counsel are
subject to sanctions as set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and LR Civ P 37.01 for
failure to participate in good faith in the development and submission of a meeting
report and proposed discovery plan; and
(2) Upon receipt of the meeting report and proposed discovery plan, this Court will
conduct a telephonic scheduling conference on May 22, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. The
Court will initiate the phone conference using the telephone numbers
provided in CM/ECF. The parties are directed to contact the Court no later
than May 20, 2013, if a different number is to be utilized for this call. The Court
will review dates for the items listed on the Scheduling Conference Checklist
enclosed herewith. Pursuant to LR Civ P 16.01(e), a scheduling order will be
entered thereafter.
2
If the parties do not desire a telephonic scheduling conference, and instead simply
wish to have a scheduling order entered based upon the parties' Meeting Report,
Proposed Discovery Plan, and Scheduling Order Checklist, they may indicate so on
the attached worksheet, and the scheduling conference will be vacated.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and/or
pro se parties.
DATED: April 12, 2013
3
Guidelines for Completing the Scheduling Order Checklist
As part of the Rule 26(f) Report, the parties MUST complete and return the attached
Scheduling Order Checklist. In completing this checklist, the parties should be guided by
the following general timeline for scheduling in this Court, as well as any applicable federal
or local rules. Of course, the parties are free to request any compression or extension of
these general guidelines that they feel is warranted by the facts of a particular case.
It is generally easiest to work backwards when completing this checklist. The parties
must first decide a date upon which their case will be ready for trial (the month and year will
suffice). Civil trials in this Court generally begin on the second and fourth Tuesday of each
month. Once a trial date is decided, the following general rules apply:
1.
The Final Pretrial Conference should be set on a Friday 2 weeks before the Trial.
2.
The Joint Final Pretrial Conference Order is due 1 week before the Final Pretrial
Conference.
3.
Pretrial Disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(3), Jury Instructions, Voir Dire,
Verdict Forms, and Motions in Limine are all due 1 month before the Final Pretrial
Conference. Objections to the same are due 2 weeks before the Final Pretrial
Conference.
4.
Dispositive Motions must be filed 10 weeks before the Final Pretrial Conference.
5.
The Discovery Completion date should be 1 month before Dispositive Motions are
due.
6.
Examinations/Inspections should be completed 8 weeks before Discovery
Completion.
4
7.
Expert Disclosures by the party with the burden should be made 8 weeks before
Discovery Completion.
8.
Expert Disclosures by the party without the burden should be made 4 weeks before
Discovery Completion.
9.
Mediation must be completed 1 week before the Final Pretrial Conference.
10.
Intermediate Pretrial Conferences are always upon request. If a situation arises
which the parties feel warrants an intermediate pretrial conference, then the parties
are free to so move.
Upon receipt of the parties' Rule 26(f) Report and Scheduling Order Checklist, the
Court will review the parties' proposed dates and verify that there are no conflicts with the
Court's existing schedule. If a conflict does exist, the Court will change the parties'
proposed date to the nearest date/time which the Court can accommodate. The Court will
inform the parties of any changes at the telephonic Scheduling Conference. If the parties
do not wish to have a telephonic scheduling conference and choose to waive the same,
then the Court will simply enter a Scheduling Order containing the parties' proposed dates
as modified by the Court. Any objections to the Court's Scheduling Order can be raised via
motion.
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
______________________
Plaintiff(s),
v.
Civil Action No. __________
______________________
Defendant(s).
SCHEDULING ORDER CHECKLIST
1. INTERMEDIATE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
Upon request
2. MEDIATION
Before -
3. EXPERT DISCLOSURE
a. With Burden
b. Without Burden
4. EXAMINATION/INSPECTIONS
_______________
5. DISCOVERY COMPLETION
6. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
_______________
7. PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES, FED R. CIV PRO 26(a) 3
_______________
6
a. Objections
_______________
8. JURY INSTRUCTIONS, VOIR DIRE and VERDICT FORMS
a. Objections
_______________
9. MOTIONS IN LIMINE
a. Objections
_______________
10. JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER
_______________
11. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
12. TRIAL
_______________
(If non-jury trial, Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law are to be filed with Court
and opposing counsel _______________)
13. CONFERENCE REQUESTED BEFORE
ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER?
7
YES
/
NO
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?