Filed: Jan. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION DUSTIN B. PEAD, Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The parties consented to this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (Docket No. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by repeatedly calling Plaintiff from an automatic telephone dialing system and attempting to collect a debt belonging to someone else named Kevin. (Dkt. No. 17.) The Court now considers an i
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION DUSTIN B. PEAD, Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The parties consented to this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (Docket No. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by repeatedly calling Plaintiff from an automatic telephone dialing system and attempting to collect a debt belonging to someone else named Kevin. (Dkt. No. 17.) The Court now considers an ir..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION
DUSTIN B. PEAD, Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The parties consented to this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docket No. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by repeatedly calling Plaintiff from an automatic telephone dialing system and attempting to collect a debt belonging to someone else named Kevin. (Dkt. No. 17.)
The Court now considers an irregular set of motions. First, Defendant filed a motion to extend the discovery deadlines. (Dkt. 37.) This motion was not opposed. Next, Plaintiff filed his own motion to extend discovery deadlines with a supporting affidavit. (Dkt. 38, 39.) Defendant filed a response. (Dkt. 40.) Finally, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Dkt. 41.)
II. MOTIONS TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
Oddly, the present dispute is not actually a dispute at all. The parties agree that all dates should be extended according to the proposal set forth in Plaintiff's motion. (See Dkt. 38, 40.) The parties are reminded of their professional obligation under the Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility, particularly Standard Ten: "Lawyers shall make good faith efforts to resolve by stipulation undisputed relevant matters . . ." Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 and District of Utah Rule 7-1 provide an express basis for stipulating to proposed amendments to discovery schedules. Counsel is encouraged to follow these procedures in the future. Nonetheless, the Court does not wish to add to any delay in this case. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery deadlines is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to extend the discovery deadlines is now moot because the deadlines are not extended beyond the date to which Defendant sought to extend them in its motion.
The scheduling order is modified as indicated below. All dates not set forth below remain unchanged.
**ALL TIMES 4:30 PM UNLESS INDICATED**
2. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS DATE
j. Close of fact discovery: 03/12/15
4. RULE 26(a)(2) REPORTS FROM EXPERTS DATE
a. Parties bearing burden of proof 04/16/15
b. Counter reports 04/30/15
5. OTHER DEADLINES DATE
a. Last day for Expert discovery 05/29/15
b. Deadline for filing dispositive or potentially dispositive 06/29/15
motions
c. Deadline for filing partial or complete motions to exclude 06/29/15
expert testimony
7. TRIAL AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TIME DATE
a. Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures1
Plaintiff 09/29/15
Defendant 10/13/15
c. Special Attorney Conference2 on or before 10/27/15
d. Settlement Conference3 on or before 10/27/15
e. Final Pretrial Conference 2:30 p.m. 11/17/15
f. Trial Length
ii. Jury Trial 2 days 8:30 a.m. 12/07/15
8. OTHER MATTERS
Counsel should contact chambers staff of the judge presiding in the case regarding
Markman motions to determine the desired process for filing and hearing of such
motions. Parties should file all such motions and Motions in Limine well in advance of
the Final Pre Trial.
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadlines. (Dkt. 38.) The Court finds that Defendant's motion to extend the discovery deadlines is now moot. (Dkt. 37.)
