Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lamb v. Wallace

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina

April 7, 2017

LARRY LAMB, Plaintiff,
v.
BLAKE WALLACE, et al., Defendants.

          ADJUSTED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

          Hon. Louise W. Flanagan United States District Court Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on the parties Joint Motion for Adjustments to the Court's Case Management Order. The parties have shown good cause and the Motion is GRANTED. The revised case management order is as follows:

         I. Discovery

         A. The parties shall exchange by May 15, 2017, any further information the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1).

         B. Discovery will be necessary on the following subjects: reference is made to the discovery proposed to be undertaken in the parties' joint report and plan.

         C. All fact discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by March 15, 2018.

         D. The parties did not raise any issues regarding electronically stored information and privileged materials.

         E. No party shall serve more than 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, to any other party. Responses are due 30 days after service of those interrogatories.

         F. No party shall serve more than 25 requests for admissions to any other party. Responses are due 30 days after service of those requests for admissions.

         G. There shall be no more than 15 depositions by each plaintiff and 15 by each defendant.

         H. Each deposition shall be limited to 7 hours, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

         I. Disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), including reports from retained experts, shall be served by plaintiffs by January 15, 2018, and by defendants by February 15, 2018. The parties shall serve any objections to such disclosures, other than objections pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) or similar case law, within 14 days after service of the disclosures upon them. These objections should be confined to technical objections related to the sufficiency of the written expert disclosures (e.g., whether all of the information required by Rule 26(a)(2) has been provided, such as lists of prior testimony and publications). These objections need not extend to admissibility of the expert's proposed testimony. If such technical objections are served, counsel shall confer or make a reasonable effort to confer before filing any motion based on those objections.

         J. Supplementations of disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) shall be served at such times and under such circumstances as required by that rule. In addition, such supplemental disclosures shall be served by February 2, 2018. The supplemental disclosures served 40 days before the deadline for completion of all discovery must identify the universe of all witnesses and exhibits that probably or even might be used at trial other than solely for impeachment. The rationale for the mandatory supplemental disclosures 40 days before the discovery deadline is to put opposing counsel in a realistic position to make strategic, tactical, and economic judgments about whether to take a particular deposition (or pursue follow-up “written” discovery) concerning a witness or exhibit disclosed by another party before the time allowed for discovery expires. Counsel should bear in mind that seldom should anything be included in the final Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures that has not previously appeared in the initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures or a timely Rule 26(e) supplement thereto; otherwise, the witness or exhibit probably will be excluded at trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).

         K. To avoid the filing of unnecessary motions, the court encourages the parties to utilize stipulations regarding discovery procedures. However, this does not apply to extensions of time that interfere with the deadlines to complete all discovery, for the briefing or hearing of a motion, or for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 29. Nor does this apply to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.