HUGGINS v. N.C. DEPT. OF ADMINISTRATION, 5:10-CV-414-FL. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120723667
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs pro se motion to stay (DE # 89) and plaintiffs motion to amend the scheduling order (DE # 97), which motion was filed through counsel who recently entered an appearance in this case. While the motion to amend the scheduling order indicates that defendant objects to the same, defendant filed no response within the allotted time. For good cause shown and where no objection separately has been lodged on
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs pro se motion to stay (DE # 89) and plaintiffs motion to amend the scheduling order (DE # 97), which motion was filed through counsel who recently entered an appearance in this case. While the motion to amend the scheduling order indicates that defendant objects to the same, defendant filed no response within the allotted time. For good cause shown and where no objection separately has been lodged on t..
More
ORDER
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs pro se motion to stay (DE # 89) and plaintiffs motion to amend the scheduling order (DE # 97), which motion was filed through counsel who recently entered an appearance in this case. While the motion to amend the scheduling order indicates that defendant objects to the same, defendant filed no response within the allotted time.
For good cause shown and where no objection separately has been lodged on the docket by defendant, in its discretion the court grants plaintiffs motion to amend the scheduling order. Where plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her appeal, the pro se motion to stay pending appeal is denied as moot. In light of the instant ruling, the court imposes the following deadlines.
• All discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by September 1,2012, except for depositions, both fact and expert, which shall be completed by October 1, 2012.
• All other potentially dispositive motions shall be filed by December 1, 2012. All motions to exclude testimony of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), or similar case law, shall be filed by the deadline set for dispositive motions.
• This case is set for a jury trial on the court's docket for that civil term of court beginning May 20, 2013, at the United States Courthouse, New Bern, North Carolina.
All other deadlines and directives as set forth in the case management order remain in full force and effect.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's pro se motion to stay (DE # 89) is DENIED AS MOOT and plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order (DE # 97) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
