Free Scheduling Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00608-AVC Document 22 Filed 12/18/2003 Page1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT —- F:ELm£5[) ”
JOHN P. NAIDEN, :
Plaintiff :
* : ZUIBDEC 18 A q;53
v. : Civil No. 3:0 0 AVC) 1
: 1YgH gfffnxci coum
scouts, mc. , : mFURD» CI
Defendant. :
SCHEDULING ORDER
(1) The plaintiffs and defendants shall have to and including
January 30, 2004 to file motions to join additional parties;
(2) all discovery, including depositions of all witnesses, shall
be completed by December 17, 2004; (
i
(3) the plaintiffs shall designate all trial experts and provide
opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on or before
August 17, 2004, and depositions of any such experts shall be
completed by December 17, 2004;
(4) the defendant shall designate all trial experts and provide (
opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on or before Q
October 17, 2004, and depositions of any such experts shall be i
completed by December 17, 2004;
(5) the parties shall exchange a damage analysis, if necessary,
on or before October 21, 2004;
(6) all motions, except motions in limine incident to a trial, E
shall be filed on or before January 30, 2005; 1
(7) the parties shall file a joint trial memorandum in accordance }
with the pretrial order, which order shall accompany the jury
selection calendar, and be sent to the parties on February 28,
2005; and
(8) the case shall be ready for trial by March 30, 2005.1
1Accordin to the joint report of the parties' plannin meeting, the
Q 9
plaintiff seeks permission to serve more than 25 interrogatories. The
defendant objects. The parties' joint filing does not indicate the additional
number of interrogatories sought by the plaintiff nor the reason such
additional interrogatories are necessary. Consequently, the court DENIES the (
request for additional interrogatories without prejudice to its refiling, at `
which time the plaintiff shall indicate the additional number of
interrogatories sought by the plaintiff as well as articulate the reason for
such additional interrogatories.
The joint report also indicates that the plaintiff desires a settlement
conference with a magistrate judge while the defendants does not. The court
reserves its decision on this matter until the motion to dismiss currently
T1T‘"”""‘*‘""‘"'"""”'****"'*”**“"""”‘"'“"*"'“"”**"""'""‘*”"”"”"‘"”"""'””_*"“






1 · Case 3:03-cv-00608-AVC Document 22 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 2 of 2
It is so ordered this l7th day of December, 2003, at
Hartford, Connecticut. A
. ,n A A
"\»V \| W,/' \J\»"’ VV/V
Alfred V. C§vello
United States District Judge
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
pending before the court is ruled on.
1
__q1