Frischling v. Radford

District Court, D. Connecticut·Decided May 9, 2024·No. 3:24-cv-00198·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

STEVEN E. FRISCHLING,

Plaintiff, No. 3:24cv138(MPS)

v.

DAVID RADFORD II, ALBERT GOSSELIN III and TOWN OF MONTVILLE, Defendants.

SCHEDULING ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties' Rule 26(f) Report (ECF No. 28), the Court orders that the deadlines set forth below shall apply. The parties’ Rule 26(f) Report is hereby adopted unless otherwise stated. • The deadline for the plaintiff to file motions to join additional parties or to amend the pleadings is June 24, 2024. Motions filed after this date require a showing of good cause.

• The deadline for the defendant to file motions to join additional parties is June 24, 2024. The deadline for the defendants to file a response to any amended complaint is July 15, 2024. Any such motions filed after these deadlines must be supported by a showing of good cause.

• All fact and expert discovery will be completed (not propounded) by August 1, 2025. Discovery will not be conducted in phases.

• The parties’ expert reports on any issues on which they bear the burden of proof will be due May 1, 2025. Depositions of such experts will be completed by June 1, 2025.

• The parties’ expert reports on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof will be due July 1, 2025. Depositions of such experts will be completed by August 1, 2025.

• A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a claim or counterclaim for damages by January 1, 2025.

• Dispositive motions are due September 15, 2025. The parties shall file response and reply briefs within the time limits set forth in the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. • The Joint Trial Memorandum is due September 30, 2025, or 30 days from the Court’s ruling on dispositive motions if any are filed, whichever is later.

• The case will be considered trial ready within 15 days of the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum.

• In addition, a Telephonic Status Conference will be held on December 13, 2024 at 4:30 p.m.; the Court will provide the parties with the dial-in information. The parties will file a joint status report by December 6, 2024.

The Court encourages the parties to discuss settlement as soon as possible. Nearly all civil cases settle, and at some point in this case, the Court will refer the parties to mediation with a U.S. Magistrate Judge to explore the potential for settlement. The sooner that occurs, the less expensive the case will be for the parties. The Court understands that sometimes it is necessary to conduct some discovery before the parties can engage in a productive mediation. If the parties believe this is such a case, the Court encourages them to discuss exchanging limited discovery, perhaps including one deposition by each party and the written discovery necessary to prepare for that deposition, before proceeding to mediation. But the parties may begin settlement discussions at any time, either by themselves or with the assistance of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Should the parties wish at any time to be referred to a Magistrate Judge for mediation, they need only so indicate to the Court by filing a joint statement making such a request (which may be as short as a single sentence), by filing a statement by one party representing in good faith that counsel for all parties have conferred and agree that such a referral would be appropriate, or by telephoning chambers to make the same representations.

Finally, the parties are responsible for following the appended instructions regarding (1) joint status reports, (2) discovery disputes, and (3) the joint trial memorandum, all of which the Court hereby incorporates as part of this Scheduling Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

________/s/____________ Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.

Dated: Hartford, Connecticut May 9, 2024 I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR STATUS REPORTS

On or before the deadline assigned by the Scheduling Order, the parties shall file with the Clerk’s Office, with certification copies sent to all counsel of record, an original joint status report, stating the following: (a) The status of the case, describing the status of discovery and identifying any pending motions and any circumstances potentially interfering with the parties’ compliance with the scheduling order;

(b) Interest in referral for settlement purposes to a United States Magistrate Judge or to the District’s special masters program;

(c) Whether the parties will consent to a trial before a magistrate judge; and

(d) The estimated length of trial.

No status reports will be accepted via facsimile. II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

All discovery issues should be resolved in good faith by counsel in accordance with their obligations to the Court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District’s Local Rules. Before filing any motion relating to discovery, the parties are required to comply with the following requirements: 1. Counsel for parties to discovery disputes must jointly contact Judge Shea’s Chambers by telephone to notify the Court that a dispute exists and provide a brief oral description of the nature of the dispute. Except in extraordinary circumstances, Chambers staff will not entertain such a communication unless counsel for all parties to the discovery dispute are on the telephone when the call is made to Chambers.

2. Within three (3) days of counsel contacting Chambers to notify the Court of the existence of a dispute, each party must provide Chambers via e-mail with a written submission summarizing the nature of the dispute and briefly explaining its position. The written submission shall take the form of a letter and shall be no more than two pages in length. All such communications must be copied to opposing counsel and must include the certification discussed in paragraph 6 below.

3. If the dispute involves a written interrogatory, request for production, request for admission, deposition notice and/or subpoena (the “discovery request”), counsel for the party who served the discovery request at issue will, along with the written submission, provide Chambers via e-mail with a copy of the particular discovery request at issue and the opposing party’s written response to that particular request. Judge Shea does not need the entire discovery request and response but requires only the particular portions of the discovery request and response at issue.

4. Other than the written submission and any discovery requests and responses at issue, Judge Shea does not require, and does not want, counsel for the parties to provide him with any briefs, documents, deposition transcripts, correspondence or written argument regarding the discovery issue in dispute.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Frischling v. Radford, (D. Conn. 2024).

Frischling v. Radford (Frischling v. Radford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)