Filed: Dec. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2012
Summary: JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCLOSURES PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. I. Introduction The parties jointly move for reconsideration of the Court's Order of November 19, 2012 (Dkt. No. 69), which denied the parties' November 15, 2012 stipulation (Dkt. No. 67) to amend the present Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 58) regarding expert disclosures. II. Discussion The November 15, 2012 stipulation should have more
Summary: JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCLOSURES PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. I. Introduction The parties jointly move for reconsideration of the Court's Order of November 19, 2012 (Dkt. No. 69), which denied the parties' November 15, 2012 stipulation (Dkt. No. 67) to amend the present Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 58) regarding expert disclosures. II. Discussion The November 15, 2012 stipulation should have more ..
More
JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCLOSURES
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
I. Introduction
The parties jointly move for reconsideration of the Court's Order of November 19, 2012 (Dkt. No. 69), which denied the parties' November 15, 2012 stipulation (Dkt. No. 67) to amend the present Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 58) regarding expert disclosures.
II. Discussion
The November 15, 2012 stipulation should have more clearly stated that the parties' requested amendment of the scheduling order does not seek to lengthen the discovery period, postpone the trial date, or extend any deadline except the expert disclosure deadline. That is, all dates other than the expert disclosure deadline would remain unchanged under the parties' proposal, and the expert disclosures would simply move to a later date within the existing discovery period.
Under the current schedule, the parties must both disclose their experts and serve reports by January 22, 2013. The parties cannot meet this schedule due to the ongoing, but incomplete, review of the voluminous document production, the need to coordinate the schedules of many attorneys and witnesses for depositions, and the expert witnesses' need for time to process the information resulting from these discovery efforts. To be more precise, the FDIC has produced 12,305 documents, consisting of 165,478 pages,1 including a 36,540-page production on or about November 13, 2012. The latter production, consisting of 3,261 documents, consists of the original files of the loans at issue.
The parties therefore request that the expert disclosure deadline be amended so that initial disclosures are exchanged by March 26, 2013, with responses exchanged by April 23, 2013. The parties expect that this modification of the schedule will allow them to complete fact discovery in sufficient time to enable the experts to prepare their reports. The modification further leaves time within the existing schedule to complete expert depositions.
Specifically, the parties wish to amend Paragraph 2(E) of the current Scheduling Order to read as follows:
The parties shall exchange the information and reports required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and (a)(2)(C) by March 26, 2013. Rebuttal reports shall be exchanged by April 23, 2013.
Again, the parties do not seek to extend the discovery period or move any date other than the expert disclosure deadlines, and then only to postpone expert disclosures. The stipulation does not affect other deadlines stated in the present Scheduling Order.
For these reasons, which the parties did not fully articulate in their November 15, 2012 stipulation, the parties respectfully request that the Court reconsider its November 19, 2012 Order denying the stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED
