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.

David Johnson v. Town of Weare

November 5, 2012

DAVID JOHNSON
v.
TOWN OF WEARE, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Landya B. McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On November 5, 2012, a preliminary pretrial conference was held in this case. Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf; Attorney Charles P. Bauer appeared for defendants Town of Weare and Weare Police Department; and Attorney Andrew B. Livernois appeared for defendant Officer Frank Jones.

The key deadlines in the discovery plan are summarized in the chart below. The parties concurred with respect to each of the following deadlines.

Scheduling Designation Deadline Track Assignment Standard - 12 mos. The parties have agreed to make Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Mandatory Disclosures A maximum of 25 interroga- tories by each party to any other party. Interrogatories A maximum of 15 requests by each party to any other party. Requests for Admission
A maximum number of 10 depositions by plaintiff and 10 by defendants. Depositions Demand January 15, 2013 Claims by Unnamed Parties February 10, 2013 Joinder of Additional Parties February 10, 2013 Third-Party Actions February 10, 2013 Amendment of Pleadings February 10, 2013 Offer February 15, 2013 Motions to Dismiss March 1, 2013 Experts and Experts' Written Reports Plaintiff: April 1, 2013 Defendants: June 1, 2013  Supplementation under Rule 26(a) July 15, 2013 Motions for Summary Judgment August 1, 2013 Joint Statement re Mediation August 1, 2013 Challenges to Expert Testimony September 1, 2013 Completion of Discovery October 1, 2013 Type of Trial Jury Trial Estimate (number of days) 2-3 days Two-week period beginning December 10, 2013 Trial Date

The court construes "Plaintiff's Amended Complaint" (doc. no. 18) as an addendum to plaintiff's complaint. Although an answer is not required, defendants may supplement their answers if they deem it necessary. The clerk's office is directed to adjust the docket accordingly.

In light of the court's approval of defendant's proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 14), the court denies as moot plaintiff's proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 17).

cc:

20121105

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...

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.