Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER BY 45 DAYS; ORDER DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Magistrate ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff JAMES E. HALL ("Plaintiff"), through his counsel Garrett & Jensen, and Defendant REGAL CINEMAS, INC. (erroneously sued and served as Regal Entertainment Group) (hereinafter "Defendant"), through its counsel Klinedinst PC, hereby stipulate and seek Court approval for the following: STIPULATION Since this Court's
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER BY 45 DAYS; ORDER DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Magistrate ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff JAMES E. HALL ("Plaintiff"), through his counsel Garrett & Jensen, and Defendant REGAL CINEMAS, INC. (erroneously sued and served as Regal Entertainment Group) (hereinafter "Defendant"), through its counsel Klinedinst PC, hereby stipulate and seek Court approval for the following: STIPULATION Since this Court's ..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER BY 45 DAYS; ORDER
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Magistrate
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff JAMES E. HALL ("Plaintiff"), through his counsel Garrett & Jensen, and Defendant REGAL CINEMAS, INC. (erroneously sued and served as Regal Entertainment Group) (hereinafter "Defendant"), through its counsel Klinedinst PC, hereby stipulate and seek Court approval for the following:
STIPULATION
Since this Court's Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order of December 7, 2015, the parties have exchanged written discovery. Due to some disagreements regarding responses to outstanding discovery, the parties met and conferred in good faith. Avoiding discovery motion practice, the parties have been able to reconcile these discovery issues and continued to work in good faith to obtain certain relevant medical records. However, the ongoing delay in the discovery process has precluded the parties from taking any depositions and/or obtaining expert review and discovery. Moreover, once the parties have obtained the necessary discovery and taken party depositions, they may explore the possibility of a settlement and/or mediation before engaging in expensive percipient and expert discovery.
The parties request a 45 day continuance of all deadlines in order to complete additional discovery, take depositions, and explore the possibility of settling and/or mediating Plaintiff's claims. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant has sought any extensions of time from this Court in the litigation of this action.
Accordingly, the parties request to modify the Scheduling Conference Order as follows:
(1) Nonexpert Discovery due by 8/15/2016;
(2) Expert Disclosure due by 5/17/2016;
(3) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure due by 6/16/2016;
(4) Expert Discovery due by 9/22/2016;
(5) Non-Dispositive Motions filed by 8/19/2016;
(6) Dispositive Motions filed by 8/29/2016;
(7) Pretrial Conference set for 12/19/2016 at 11:00 AM; and
(8) Jury Trial set for 1/27/2017
SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Accordingly, for good cause and pursuant to the above Stipulation of the Parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Nonexpert Discovery due by 8/15/2016;
(2) Expert Disclosure due by 5/17/2016;
(3) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure due by 6/16/2016;
(4) Expert Discovery due by 9/22/2016;
(5) Non-Dispositive Motions filed by 8/19/2016;
(6) Dispositive Motions filed by 8/29/2016;
(7) Pretrial Conference set for 12/19/2016 at 11:00 AM; and
(8) Jury Trial set for 1/27/2017
All other orders in the Scheduling Order issued on December 7, 2015 (Doc. 25) remain in full force and effect.
Further extensions are discouraged and the Court will request a conference before doing do.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
