Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shore v. The Procter & Gamble Health

United States District Court, D. Kansas

November 7, 2018

ROY M. SHORE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE HEALTH AND LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN PROCTER & GAMBLE INSURED-UNFUNDED WELFARE PLAN, et al., Defendants. SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND SETTINGS Event Deadline/Setting

          AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

          James P. O'Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         On November 6, 2018, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, James P. O'Hara, conducted a telephonic scheduling conference. Plaintiff appeared through counsel, Tylor B. Whitham. Defendants appeared through counsel, Stephanie O. Zorn.

         As agreed to by the parties, all pending discovery is stayed pending early mediation. Discovery responses are due 21 after completion of mediation if the case hasn't been settled.

         After consultation with the parties, the court enters this scheduling order, summarized in the table that follows:

SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND SETTINGS
Event
Deadline/Setting

Defendants' settlement counter-proposal

November 30, 2018

Jointly filed mediation notice

November 30, 2018

Mediation completed

January 4, 2019

Supplementation of initial disclosures

40 days before deadline for completion of all discovery

All discovery completed

April 26, 2019

Motions to amend or join additional parties

November 13, 2018

All potentially dispositive motions

May 24, 2019

Defendants' response to plaintiff's dispositive motion, and cross-motion

28 days thereafter (but no later than June 21, 2019)

Plaintiff's response to cross-motion, and reply

28 days thereafter (but no later than July 19, 2019)

Defendants' reply

14 days thereafter (but no later than August 2, 2019)

         1) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

         As earlier indicated, settlement of this case would be enhanced by use of early mediation. Toward that end, plaintiff already has made a good-faith settlement proposal. Defendant must make a good-faith counter-proposal by November 30, 2018. Also by November 30, 2018, the parties must jointly file a notice stating the full name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person whom they have selected to serve as mediator, along with the firmly scheduled date, time, and place of mediation. Absent further order of the court, mediation must be held no later than January 4, 2019. An ADR report must be filed by defense counsel within 14 days of any scheduled ADR process, using the form located on the court's website:

http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/adr-report/

         2) Discovery.

         a) The parties already have served their initial disclosures with regard to witnesses, exhibits, damage computations, and any applicable insurance coverage, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1). See ECF Nos. 19 and 20. Supplementations of those disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) must be served throughout the case at such times and under such circumstances as required by that rule. In addition, final supplemental disclosures must be served in any event 40 days before the deadline for completion of all discovery. The supplemental disclosures served 40 days before the deadline for completion of all discovery must identify all witnesses and exhibits that probably or even might be used at trial. The opposing party and counsel should be placed in a realistic position to make judgments about whether to take a particular deposition or pursue follow-up “written” discovery before the time allowed for discovery expires. Should anything be included in the final disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) that has not previously appeared in the initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures or a timely Rule 26(e) supplement thereto, the witness or exhibit probably will be excluded from offering any testimony under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).

         b) All discovery must be commenced or served in time to be completed by April 26, 2019. The court respectfully reminds the parties and counsel that they are entitled to obtain pretrial discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter provided it's (a) relevant to a party's claim or defense, AND (b) proportional to the needs of this case. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), whether any particular discovery request is proportional is to be determined by considering, to the extent they apply, the following six factors: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action, (2) the amount in controversy, (3) the parties' relative access to relevant information, (4) the parties' resources, (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

         c) The parties have stipulated that no expert testimony will be used in this case. The parties have further stipulated that physical or mental examinations pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 are not appropriate in this case.

         d) The court considered but ultimately wasn't called upon to resolve the following discovery problem raised by the parties: Defendants maintain that there should be no discovery beyond the administrative record; plaintiff disagrees.

         e) The parties do not anticipate any ESI discovery, i.e., the parties intend to provide printed or PDF ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.