ORDER
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the parties' Supplemental Joint Status Report (Doc. # 102), which was filed on June 27, 2012. Therein, the parties jointly request that this case remain under stay until October 1, 2012, "at which point the parties can provide another joint status report." Id. at 2. For the reasons that follow, the Court lifts the stay of this case and sets this case for a jury trial.
Discussion
Plaintiffs initiated this action in state court on January 9, 2008, and Defendant removed to this Court on September 11, 2008, after being served with the complaint on August 21, 2008. (Doc. # 1 at 10). This Court entered its Case Management and Scheduling Order on December 18, 2008. (Doc. # 29). Among other deadlines, it established the discovery deadline as September 11, 2009, and set this case for a jury trial during the Court's March 2010, trial term. Id. On December 30, 2008, the Court entered an Order (Doc. # 30) granting as unopposed Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Final Resolution of Interlocutory Appeals (Doc. # 25). Therein, the Court stayed this case pending the final resolution of the interlocutory appeals in Bernice Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Case No. 3:07-cv-761-J-25HTS, and Franklin J. Burr v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Case No. 8:07-cv-1429-T-23EAJ. (Doc. # 30).
On November 15, 2010, this Court entered an Order remarking that the aforementioned interlocutory appeals have been resolved, lifting the previously imposed stay of the case, and directing the parties to file an updated Case Management Report. (Doc. # 63). The parties filed their updated Case Management Report (Doc. # 64) on December 6, 2010, and the Court issued its Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 66) on March 1, 2011, setting the discovery deadline as March 23, 2012, and the dispositive motions deadline as May 4, 2012, and setting this case for a jury trial during the Court's August 2012 trial term. Thereafter, the parties selected Peter Grilli, Esq. as their mediator and scheduled mediation for April 30, 2012. (Doc. # 70).1
On September 7, 2011, the parties filed their Joint Motion for Stay (Doc. # 95), in which the parties enumerated various reasons why the case should be stayed for 9 months. The Court entered an Order staying the case pursuant to the parties' request on that same date. (Doc. # 96).
Nine months later, on June 15, 2012, the Court entered an Order directing the parties to advise the Court as to the status of this case and whether the parties would be ready for trial in August 2012. (Doc. # 99). On June 20, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Status Report indicating that the parties desire that the case remain under stay until October 2012, and that the parties will be able to furnish additional status reports in October 2012. (Doc. # 100). No reason was given for the parties' apparent lack of motivation to move forward with this case. On June 20, 2012, this Court entered an Order rejecting the parties' vague and unsupported request for a continued stay of this case and noted, "[u]nless the parties provide a compelling reason to continue the stay of this case . . . the Court will lift the stay and set this case for an August 2012 trial." (Doc. # 101).
On June 27, 2012, the parties provided their Supplemental Status Report. That Status Report is rife with inaccurate statements and unpersuasive arguments. The Court notes that it granted the parties' request for a nine-month stay of this case in September 2011, based on Defendant's representation that the case should be stayed pending resolution of Defendant's Rule 16(c) Motion filed in Waggoner v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, Case No. 3:09-cv-10367-TJC-JBT. A review of the Waggoner case reveals that the Rule 16(c) Motion was decided on February 7, 2012. In addition, the parties have not provided any compelling reason why a continued stay is necessary. As this case was initiated in state court on January 9, 2008, this Court is duty-bound to move it forward toward final resolution.
At this juncture, the Court determines that it is appropriate to lift the stay of this case. Furthermore, as the parties have correctly identified the Waggoner case as a related case, the Court determines that it is appropriate to enter a Case Management and Scheduling Order tracking that which was recently entered in the Waggoner case. The Court directs the Clerk to enter the Case Management and Scheduling Order attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The stay of this case is lifted and this case is set for trial as specified in the Case Management and Scheduling Order attached as Exhibit A.
(2) The parties are directed to advise the Court as to the status of the mediation by July 3, 2012.
DONE and ORDERED.
SECOND AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER
Having reopened this case, the Court enters this case management and scheduling order, which tracks the Case Management and Scheduling Order entered in case 3:09-cv-10367-TJC-JBT.
Fact Discovery Deadline February 29, 2012
Disclosure of Expert Reports Plaintiff: March 30, 2012
Defendant: April 16, 2012
Expert Discovery Deadline May 30, 2012
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Deadline August 17, 2012
Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions June 7, 2012
Responses June 21, 2012
Replies June 28, 2012
All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine July 19, 2012
Responses August 2, 2012
Joint Final Pretrial Statement August 10, 2012
Pretrial Conference August 17, 2012
9:00 A.M.
Trial Term September 1, 2012
December 15, 2012
Estimated Length of Trial 5-7 days
Jury/Non Jury Jury
I. MOTIONS
Before filing any motion in a civil case, the moving party shall confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion, and shall file with the motion a statement certifying that the moving party has conferred with the opposing party, and that the parties have been unable to agree on the resolution of the motion. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Court will deny motions that fail to include an appropriate, complete Rule 3.01(g) certificate.
1. All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine — On or before the date established in the above table, the parties shall file and serve all other motions including motions in limine. Local Rule 3.01(g) applies, and the parties shall confer to define and limit the issues in dispute. Motions in Limine shall not exceed 12 pages. Responses must not exceed 10 pages.
2. Previous Rulings — Any motion or request for relief that has previously been ruled on in other federal Engle progeny cases shall so state in the title of the motion. The Court recognizes the need to renew motions or requests for the purpose of preserving the record; however the parties are advised that previous rulings will be reconsidered only in the furtherance of justice.
II. JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
1. Form of Joint Final Pretrial Statement — On or before the date established in the above table, the parties shall file a Joint Final Pretrial Statement that strictly conforms to the requirements of Local Rule 3.06(c) and this Order. Lead trial counsel for all parties shall sign the Joint Final Pretrial Statement. The Court will strike pretrial statements that are unilateral, incompletely executed, or otherwise incomplete. Inadequate stipulations of fact and law will be stricken. At the conclusion of the pretrial conference, all pleadings are deemed to merge into the Joint Final Pretrial Statement, which will control the course of the trial. M.D. Fla. R. 3.06(e).
2. Exhibit List — The exhibit list filed in compliance with Local Rules 3.06(c)(4) and 3.07(b) must be on the Clerk's approved form (attached to this order). Unlisted exhibits will not be received into evidence at trial, except by order of the Court in the furtherance of justice. See M.D. Fla. R. 3.06(e). The Joint Final Pretrial Statement must attach the following exhibit lists:
a. A joint exhibit list listing all exhibits with no objections.
b. Each party must also attach a separate exhibit list on the approved form listing each specific objection ("all objections reserved" does not suffice) to each numbered exhibit that remains after full discussion and stipulation. Objections not made — or not made with specificity — are waived.
c. Any exhibit that has been previously admitted in a federal Engle progeny trial will be admissible, over objection, in these cases, and shall be identified as "previously admitted" on the exhibit list.
3. Witness List — On the witness list required by Local Rule 3.06(c)(5), the parties and counsel shall designate which witnesses will likely be called, and also designate which witnesses may be called. Absent good cause, the Court will not permit over objection trial testimony from unlisted witnesses. This restriction does not apply to true rebuttal witnesses (i.e., witnesses whose testimony could not reasonably have been foreseen to be necessary). Records custodians may be listed but will not likely be called at trial, except in the rare event that authenticity or foundation is contested.
4. Depositions — The Court encourages stipulations of fact to avoid calling unnecessary witnesses. Where a stipulation will not suffice, the Court permits the use of depositions. The parties shall prepare for submission and consideration at the final pretrial conference or trial an edited and marked copy (as to the portion offered by each party) of any deposition or deposition excerpt which is to be offered in evidence. The parties shall include in the Joint Final Pretrial Statement a page-and-line description of any testimony that remains in dispute after an active and substantial effort at resolution, together with argument and authority for each party's position. Previous rulings on deposition testimony shall be noted for the Court and will only be reconsidered in the furtherance of justice.
5. Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms — It is the Court's present intention to use a standard set of jury instructions and verdict forms in this case.
6. Coordination of Joint Final Pretrial Statement — Except as otherwise ordered, the parties are directed to meet the pretrial disclosure requirements in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and to timely adhere to all requirements in Local Rule 3.06 concerning Final Pretrial Procedures. While counsel for Plaintiff shall be responsible for initiating the pretrial compliance process, all parties are responsible for assuring its timely completion.
III. MOTIONS HEARING AND OMNIBUS PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
1. The pretrial conference will be held before the undersigned, in Courtroom 14B, United States Courthouse, 801 N. Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida on August 17, 2012, at 9:00 A.M. Lead counsel, who are vested with full authority to make and solicit disclosures and agreements touching on all matters pertaining to any pending motions and trial, shall attend.
2. All counsel and parties must be prepared to address any and all dispositive and Daubert motions, motions in limine, and any other pending motions, and must be prepared and authorized to accomplish the purposes set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Local Rule 3.06.
IV. TRIAL
1. Trial Before District Judge — Counsel, parties, and witnesses shall be available for trial at the beginning of the trial term. Absent a showing of good cause, trial will not be continued.
2. Two-Phased Trial — The determination of the amount of punitive damages, if any, will be bifurcated from other issues.
3. Voir Dire — As part of the Joint Final Pretrial Statement, the parties should submit a set of agreed upon voir dire questions, as well as a separate set for each party of questions that are not agreed upon.
4. Exhibit Notebook — On the first day of a trial, the parties shall provide to the Court a bench notebook containing marked copies of all exhibits. The parties may contact the courtroom deputy clerk for the trial judge to determine whether this requirement may be waived.
V. DATES AND DEADLINES
1. In the event that the dates set herein for the hearing and pretrial conference and/or trial are continued or otherwise modified, the remaining provisions of this Order shall remain in full force and effect.
2. The Court has done everything possible to set appropriate deadlines for this case. The parties should proceed accordingly. Do not assume that the Court will extend these deadlines.
EXHIBIT LIST
