Chalepah v. City of Omaha, 8:18CV381. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20191105673
Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2019
Summary: SECOND AMENDED FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Extend the Progression Order (Filing No. 50). After review of the parties' motion, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extensions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Extend the Progression Order (Filing No. 50) is granted, and the amended final progression order is amended as follows: 1) The pretrial conference is
Summary: SECOND AMENDED FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Extend the Progression Order (Filing No. 50). After review of the parties' motion, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extensions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Extend the Progression Order (Filing No. 50) is granted, and the amended final progression order is amended as follows: 1) The pretrial conference is c..
More
SECOND AMENDED FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER
MICHAEL D. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Extend the Progression Order (Filing No. 50). After review of the parties' motion, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extensions. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Extend the Progression Order (Filing No. 50) is granted, and the amended final progression order is amended as follows:
1) The pretrial conference is cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date.
2) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is December 16, 2019. Motions to compel discovery under Rules 33, 34, and 36 must be filed by December 30, 2019.
Note: A motion to compel, to quash, or for a disputed protective order shall not be filed without first contacting the chambers of the undersigned magistrate judge to set a conference for discussing the parties' dispute.
3) The telephone conference originally scheduled for December 6, 2019, is cancelled. A status conference to discuss case progression and the parties' interest in settlement will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on Monday, January 13, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. by telephone. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference.
4) The deadlines for identifying expert witnesses expected to testify at the trial, (both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are:
For the plaintiffs: December 16, 2019
For the defendants: January 16, 2020
5) The deadlines for complete expert disclosures1 for all experts expected to testify at trial, (both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are:
For the plaintiffs: January 30, 2020
For the defendants: March 2, 2020
Plaintiffs' rebuttal: March 30, 2020
6) The deposition deadline is May 7, 2020.
7) The telephone conference scheduled for July 17, 2020, is cancelled. A status conference to discuss dispositive motions, the pretrial conference and trial dates, and settlement status will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on Friday, May 8, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. by telephone. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference.
8) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and related grounds is June 4, 2020.
9) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is June 11, 2020.
10) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that are not inconsistent with this order.
11) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established herein shall be directed to the undersigned magistrate judge. Such requests will not be considered absent a showing of due diligence in the timely progression of this case and the recent development of circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion, which require that additional time be allowed.
FootNotes
1. While treating medical and mental health care providers are generally not considered "specially retained experts," not all their opinions relate to the care and treatment of a patient. Their opinion testimony is limited to what is stated within their treatment documentation. As to each such expert, any opinions which are not stated within that expert's treatment records and reports must be separately and timely disclosed.
Source: Leagle
