Free Scheduling Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. 3. 1. vs. UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. On March 23, 2006, a Scheduling Conference was held pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Prior to the conference, the parties filed a Rule 26(f) Case Management Plan and a Proposed Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Pursuant to the terms of the Case Management Plan, and the representations made by the parties at the Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference, all parties were ordered to comply with the deadlines established in this Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: That the current provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings concerning this case. The parties have already exchanged Initial Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a). Motions pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, motions to amend the complaint and motions to join additional parties shall be filed no later than December 3, 2003. HARRY D. HARTNETT, Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case No.: CIV 03-1339-PHX-MHM

Case 2:03-cv-01339-MHM

Document 60

Filed 04/11/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

4. 5.

Pursuant to ERISA, there will be no experts. All discovery, including depositions of parties, witnesses, and experts, answers to interrogatories, supplements to interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for production of documents must be completed by June 30, 2006.

6.

Supplemental disclosures and discovery responses shall thereafter be made as required by Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Interrogatories and depositions are limited to the number set forth in Local Rule 2.12(b)(4)©. Parties are directed to Local Rule 1.1(j), which prohibits filing discovery motions unless the parties have first met to resolve any discovery difficulties. If parties cannot reach a resolution of discovery disputes they are directed to arrange a conference call with the Court to resolve the disputes. This Order contemplates that each party will conduct discovery in such a manner as to complete, within the deadline, any and all discovery indicated by the initial rounds of discovery. Discovery which cannot be timely responded to prior to the discovery deadlines will be met with disfavor, and could result in denial of an extension, exclusion of evidence, or the imposition of other sanctions.

7.

All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than August 14, 2006. Such motions must be, in all respects; in full compliance with the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

8.

All parties are specifically admonished that pursuant to Local Rule 1.10(I), "[i]f a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails to appear at the time and place for oral argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily."

9.

Notwithstanding Rule 1.10(f)(1) of the Rules of Practice of the United States
-2-

Case 2:03-cv-01339-MHM

Document 60

Filed 04/11/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11. 10.

District Court for the District of Arizona, the parties shall not notice oral argument on any motion. Instead, a party desiring oral argument on a motion shall request argument by placing "Oral Argument Requested" immediately below the title of such motion, pursuant to Rule 1.10(f)(2) of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The Court will then issue a minute order scheduling the oral argument. The Court will set a status hearing upon resolution of all dispositive motions. In the event no dispositive motions are filed, the Court will set a status hearing upon the passing of the dispositive motion deadline. At the status hearing the parties should be prepared to discuss the dates for the filing of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and all Motions in Limine. The Court will also set a Final Pretrial Conference and a firm trial date at the status hearing. The parties shall keep the Court informed regarding the possibility of settlement and should settlement be reached, the parties shall immediately file a Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the Court. DATED this 6th day of April, 2006.

-3Case 2:03-cv-01339-MHM Document 60 Filed 04/11/2006 Page 3 of 3