Free Status Report - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—01563-G|\/IS Document 11 Filed 03/16/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DANNETTE G. MCLAUGHLIN )
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 04-1563-GMS
v. )
)
DIAMOND STATE PORT CORP. )
Defendant. )
JOINT STATUS REPORT OF THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Local Rule l6.2(b), plaintiff, Darmette G. McLaughlin ("Plaintiff’)
and defendant, Diamond State Port Corporation ("DSPC") have conferred regarding each agenda
item contained in the Court’s March 1, 2005 Notice of Scheduling and provide the following
joint status report:
I. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
There are no issues regarding subject matter or personal jurisdiction. No
parties remain to be served.
II. SUBSTANCE OF THE ACTION
Plaintiffs claims in this action are based on alleged retaliation for her
complaints of discrimination. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that she is a part—time employee of
DSPC and has been denied the opportunity for full-time employment with DSPC due to the
alleged retaliation.
DSPC denies that plaintiff has been subjected to any retaliation.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
The parties dispute whether plaintiff was subjected to any retaliation in her
employment with DSPC as alleged. The parties also dispute the appropriate remedy or remedies

Case 1 :04-cv—01563-GIVIS Document 11 Filed 03/16/2005 Page 2 of 4
should liability be found.
IV. NARROWING OF THE ISSUES
As with any case, the issues in dispute may be narrowed by decisions on
dispositive motions.
V. RELIEF
Plaintiff is seeking alleged lost wages and benefits, compensatory
damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Damages, if any, would need to be determined by the
jury. Attomey’s fees and costs, if any, would be subject to determination by the Court at the
conclusion of the case.
VI. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
The parties do not currently anticipate any amendment to the pleadings.
The parties propose that a cut-off date of June 3, 2005 be placed in the Scheduling Order.
VII. JOINDER OF PARTIES
The parties do not currently anticipate the joinder of any additional parties
and propose that a cut-off date of June 3, 2005 be placed in the Scheduling Order.
VIII. DISCOVERY
a. Plaintiff" s statement. Plaintiff anticipates receiving responses to
written discovery by early May. Depending upon the information provided therein, Plaintiff
estimates she may require as many as ten fact depositions.
b. Defendant’s statement. DSPC currently anticipates serving written
discovery on plaintiff to further clarify the nature of her claims and all actions she has taken in
relation to those claims. DSPC also anticipates taking at least plaintiff’ s deposition.
- 2 -

Case 1 :04-cv—01563-GIVIS Document 11 Filed 03/16/2005 Page 3 of 4
c. The parties agree that fact depositions should be limited to ten per
party with a limit of seven hours per deposition, subject to either party requesting additional
depositions and/or time upon a showing of good cause. They also agree that all fact and expert
discovery should be instituted so that it is completed on or before October 3, 2005.
d. The parties agree that plaintiff should identify and serve initial
expert reports for her experts on or before June 24, 2005 with DSPC to identify and serve initial
reports for its experts, if any, by July 15, 2005. Plaintiffs rebuttal expert reports, if any, shall be
served by August 5, 2005 and DSPC’s rebuttal expert reports, if any, shall be served by August
19, 2005. The parties further agree that expert depositions should be pemritted of all identified
testifying experts, including any treating physicians or medical experts, subject to the linits noted
above. The parties do not believe that any less costly or less time consuming methods are
available to obtain the necessary information.
IX. ESTIMATED TRIAL LENGTH
The parties believe that the trial in this matter will last approximately three
days.
X. J URY TRIAL
A jury trial has been requested of all issues triable to a jury.
XI. SETTLEMENT
At this time there have not been any substantive settlement discussions.
The parties do not believe that this matter might be properly referred to the United States
Magistrate for the purpose of exploring the possibility of a settlement.
- 3 -

Case 1 :04-cv—01563-GIVIS Document 11 Filed 03/16/2005 Page 4 of 4
XII. OTHER MATTERS
The parties agree that discovery of confidential employment records and
other confidential business records will be conducted subject to a confidentiality order limiting
the use and dissemination of those records. The Court entered such an order in a prior action
between these same parties. The parties will request that Court enter that order in this case as
well.
XIII. STATEMENT OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned counsel has conferred regarding each of the above
matters.
SMITH KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW LLP MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
Laience V. Cronin (#2385) Donald E. Reid (#1058)
800 Delaware Avenue Jason A. Cincilla (#4232)
7th Floor 1201 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 P.O. Box 1347
(302) 652-8400 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
Attomeys for Plaintiff (302) 658-9200
Attorneys for Defendant
OF COUNSEL
Dated: ];\¤·r4,k IL, 2005
Nancy C. Demis (#58897)
Dena B. Calo (#76950)
GALLAGHER, SCHOENFELD, SUR1 & CHUPEIN, P.C.
25 West Second Street
P.O. Box 900
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (610) 565-4600
Attorneys for Plaintiff
455808
- 4 -