fyi CON NOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
A Arronmrsvs AT 1.Aw `
wiuvunerou, ma
The Nemours Building
1007 North Orange St.
. P.0. Box 2207
· Wilmington, DE 19899
nat. (302) ess 9141
Max B- Walmn - mx:
TEL (302) 888-6297 WEB: www.cbIh.com
FAX (302) 656-0116 ,
EMAIL [email protected] l
REPLY TO Wilmington Office I
A ‘ January 31, 2008
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE
The Honorable Leonard P. Stark C
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Room 4209 , V s e
Lock Box 18
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Warren, et al. v. New Castle Caunty
` C.A. N0. 07-725 "‘** LPS
Dear Judge Stark:
Pursuant to the Court’s January 15, 2008 Order, the parties have conferred ·
concerning scheduling, and jointly submit the following for the Court’s consideration.
1 A. H Briefing on New Castle C0unty’s Motion to Dismiss
This case involves anti—trust, constitutional, declaratory judgment, and estoppel
claims relating to sewer service for proposed housing developments. Defendant New
Castle County ("County") tiled a motion to dismiss the complaint and opening brief on ·
January 4, 2008. Plaintiffs Gary C. Warren, Gail B. Warren, and Toll Bros., Inc.
(collectively "Plaintiffs") filed an amended complaint on January 18, 2008. The County
has moved to dismiss all allegations in the amended complaint, and the parties have _
agreed, subject to the approval of the Court, that briefing on the motion should proceed as
follows:
County’s supplemental opening brief —- January 31, 2008 ‘
V Plaintiffs’ answering brief —— February 29, 2008
County’s reply brief- March 14, 2008
wiuvuneron, mz wnsi-imcron, nc Los Anosuzs, CA
Case 1:O7—cv—OO725-SLR-LPS Document 15 Filed O1/31/2008 Page 2 of 3 ‘
The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
January 31, 2008
Page 2
1 Plaintiffs request an opportunity to tile a sur—rep1y brief in response to any new
arguments or issues raised in the County’s reply brief. The County opposes this request.
B. Scheduling Order g
The parties have conferred concerning the draft scheduling order, and unless
otherwise noted, have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, that: _ l
I 1. Section 1.
The County’s position —- The County proposes that initial disclosures from
both parties shall be due twenty (20) days after the Court decides the
‘ County’s motion to dismiss. Because the County has moved to dismiss all
allegations in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6), the County believes that all discovery should be stayed until i
s resolution of the motion to dismiss. The County will tile a motion to stay 8
discovery prior to the conference scheduled for February 6, 2008.
8 Plaintiffs’ position — Plaintiffs oppose a stay of discovery and requests that
initial disclosures from both parties be served within ten (10) days after
the scheduling order is entered. Plaintiffs’ agreement to the scheduling
deadlines contained herein assumes that discovery can commence
forthwith. .
2. Section 2. All motions to join other parties, and to amend or supplement
_ the pleadings, shall be filed on or before September 1, 2008.
3. Section 3.a. .
The County’s position — The County proposes that each side be limited to
a total of eighty (80) hours of taking testimony upon oral examination.
The County proposes that the parties be permitted to take an additional
twenty (20) hours of expert discovery.
Plaintiffs’ position —— Plaintiffs propose that each side be limited to one
- hundred fifty (150) hours of taking testimony upon oral examination.
Plaintiffs propose that the parties be permitted to take an additional twenty
(20) hours of expert discovery.
. 4. Section 3.c. All fact discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it will
be completed on or before October 30, 2008.
5. Section 3.d. For the party who has the initial burden of proof, the initial
disclosure of expert testimony is due on or before November 21, 2008.
Case 1:O7—cv—OO725-SLR-LPS Document 15 Filed O1/31/2008 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Leonard P. Stark _
January 31, 2008
Page 3 _
The supplemental disclosure to contradict or rebut evidence on the same
_ matter identified by another party is due on or before December 19, 2008.
The parties jointly request an expert discovery period, and that expert
discovery be completed on or before January 21, 2009.
6. Section 7. On October 1, 2008, counsel shall submit a letter to the Court
' with an interim report on the nature of the matters in issue and the p
progress of discovery to date.
7. _ Section 8. The parties are available at the convenience of the Court for a
status conference.
8. · Section 9. All case dispositive motions, an opening brief, and affidavits, if
any, in support of the motion shall be served and filed on or before
January 30, 2009. Answering briefs shall be filed on February 27, 2009
and reply briefs shall be filed on March 16, 2009. Plaintiffs request an
opportunity to tile a sur-reply brief to respond to any new arguments or
issues raised in any reply brief filed by the County. The County opposes
this request.
9. Section 11. The parties are available at the convenience of the Court for a
pretrial conference and shall file the pretrial order as directed by the Court.
, r 10. Section 14. The parties are available at the convenience of the Court for
trial. '
C. Consent To Jurisdiction V
One ofthe parties does not consent to Your Honor assuming full jurisdiction over
this case.
( The parties look forward to discussing these and other matters with the Court
` during the teleconference scheduled for February Q 2008 at 10:00 AM. * W
Respectfully submitted, i
Max B. Walton (Bar No. 3876)
_ MBW/kah
s cc: Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esquire (by electronic service)
V Marc B. Kaplin, Esquire (by electronic mail)
Gregg E. Wilson, Esquire (by regular mail) »
Case 1:07-cv-00725-SLR-LPS
Document 15
Filed 01/31/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00725-SLR-LPS
Document 15
Filed 01/31/2008
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00725-SLR-LPS
Document 15
Filed 01/31/2008
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms