From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Nov 6, 2009
Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL (D.N.H. Nov. 6, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL.

November 6, 2009


ORDER


As discussed with the parties at oral argument on October 30, 2009, in light of this court's recent order granting supplemental discovery to the plaintiffs because of a defense discovery error, the court hereby enters the following amended scheduling order:

Document no. 97.

November 15, 2009 November 18, 2009 November 18, 2009 December 17, 2009 January 8, 2010 January 22, 2010 January 29, 2010 February 12, 2010 February 12, 2010 February 12, 2010 February 19, 2010 February 26, 2010 20 days prior to Final Pretrial Conference. Response/Objections due 10 days prior to Final Pretrial Conference. June 2, 2010

• Fact Discovery Completion (Except for Court-Ordered Supplemental Discovery): • Plaintiffs' Expert Depositions Complete: • "DiBenedetto" Disclosure: • Defendants' Supplemental Court-Ordered Production: • Plaintiffs' Expert Report Supplementation (If Necessary In Light of Court-Ordered Supplemental Discovery): • Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Depositions Completed (If Necessary In Light of Expert Report Supplementation): • Defendants' Expert Report Supplementation: • Defendants' Expert Depositions Completed: • Expert Discovery Completion: • Completion of All Discovery: • Challenges to Expert Testimony: • Summary Judgment: • Motions in Limine: • Jury Selection: Expert depositions. The parties shall take immediate steps to schedule all remaining expert depositions within the deadlines set forth above, including plaintiffs' supplemental expert depositions (which will be limited to one half-day of 3.5 hours each) and defendants' expert depositions. The court is unlikely to grant further extensions of the deposition deadlines.

Discovery disputes. As is the court's practice, discovery disputes will continue to be handled by the undersigned judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge, in the normal course. Motions to compel are disfavored. The party or counsel seeking discovery-related relief should confer with adverse counsel to choose mutually available dates, and then contact the Deputy Clerk to schedule a conference call with the court. The court will inform counsel and parties what written materials, if any, should be submitted in advance of the conference call.

Customary motions to compel discovery, while disfavored by the undersigned judge, are nonetheless permissible. If counsel prefer traditional discovery litigation to the conference call procedure set forth above, any such motion to compel should expressly request, in the title of the motion, a referral to the United States Magistrate Judge. Such referral requests will normally be granted.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Nov 6, 2009
Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL (D.N.H. Nov. 6, 2009)
Case details for

Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Karen S. Bartlett, et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., et al

Court:United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

Date published: Nov 6, 2009

Citations

Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL (D.N.H. Nov. 6, 2009)