The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William McCurine, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court
RULING FOLLOWING TELECONFERENCE RE: JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
On September 12, 2011, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference to review the parties' Joint Discovery Plan which was lodged with the Court on August 1, 2011. Alexander Conti, Esq., appeared for Plaintiffs. Anthony Durone, Esq., appeared for Defendant. After hearing from counsel of record, and good cause appearing, the Court issues the following orders:
Defendant shall be allowed to take the deposition of plaintiff's liability expert Jennifer Ziegler. Plaintiff shall also be allowed to take the deposition of defendant's liability expert. (The court did not need any additional briefing on this matter.)
Similarly, to the extent any party's experts relies on new material to develop a supplemental opinion, he/she may be deposed thereon. The parties are free to conduct appropriate discovery on the new material.
The new discovery cut-off date is February 17, 2012.
The parties are ordered to supplement their expert reports, but only if the party feels supplementation is necessary. The party that does not supplement its expert reports must live by that decision. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1105-1106 (9th Cir. 2001).
Each party must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) (A).
The court will not set another dispositive motion cut-off date.
The new Pretrial Conference date before the Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz is May 15, 2012, 3:30p.m.
Defendant is allowed to personally serve a second set of Interrogatories upon Hoot Winc, specifically interrogatories numbers 1 through and including 8. The proposed interrogatories were already submitted as Exhibit 3 to defendant's previous submittal to the Court.
Defendant shall have the right to personally serve its second set of Requests for Production upon plaintiff Hoot Winc. To the extent Hoot Winc has not already provided the documents requested, Hoot Winc must provide the documents. If Hoot Winc has already provided the documents, it does not have to provide them a second time. The proposed requests for production were already submitted to the court as Exhibit 4 to defendant's previous submittal to the Court.
Plaintiff is allowed to personally serve upon defendant its second set of Interrogatories. These interrogatories were submitted to the court as exhibit A to the parties' Joint Discovery Plan lodged pursuant to the court order dated July 18, 2011.
Plaintiff is allowed to personally serve its second set of Requests for Production on defendant. This Request for Production was submitted to the court as exhibit B to the parties' Joint Discovery Plan lodged pursuant ...