The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas D. Thalken United States Magistrate Judge
AMENDED ORDER SETTING FINAL SCHEDULE FOR PROGRESSION OF CASE
This matter is before the court on the parties' Joint Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order (Filing No. 43). Upon consideration,
IT IS ORDERED: The parties' Joint Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order (Filing No. 43) is granted as set forth below. The Pretrial Disclosures, Final Pretrial Conference and Trial settings will be extended to accommodate the parties' request to file motions for summary judgment on July 26, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: The provisions of the court's earlier progression orders remain in effect, and in addition to those provisions, the following shall apply:
1. Motions for Summary Judgment. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed not later than July 26, 2013. See NECivR 56.1 and 7.1.
2. Disclosure of Expert Witnesses.*fn1 Each plaintiff, counter-claimant, and cross-claimant shall, as soon as practicable but not later than May 30, 2013, serve all opposing parties with the statement required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) regarding each expert witness it expects to call to testify at trial pursuant to the provisions of Rule 702, 703 or 705, Fed. Rules of Evidence. Each defendant, counter-defendant, and cross-defendant shall serve its statement of the expert witnesses it expects to call to testify pursuant to Rule 702, 703 or 705, Fed. Rules of Evidence, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) as soon thereafter as practicable, but not later than June 27, 2013. If necessary to refute the disclosed opinions of an expert witness of an opponent, a plaintiff, counter-claimant, or cross-claimant may disclose additional expert witnesses not later than July 12, 2013, provided that the disclosing party then provides all of the information described in Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2) and makes the expert witness available for deposition prior to the date set for completion of depositions. Supplementation of these disclosures, if originally made prior to these deadlines, shall be made on these deadlines as to any information for which supplementation is addressed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). The testimony of the expert at trial shall be limited to the information disclosed in accordance with this paragraph.
3. Pretrial Disclosures.*fn2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), each party shall serve opposing counsel and file a redacted version as applicable with the following information regarding the evidence it may present at trial other than solely for impeachment purposes as soon as practicable but not later than the date specified:
a. Witnesses - On or before September 27, 2013: The name, address and telephone number of each witness, separately identifying those whom the party expects to present and those whom the party may call if the need arises.
b. Deposition Testimony and Discovery - The designation of discovery testimony and discovery responses intended to be utilized at trial is not required for this case. Motions to require such designations may be filed not later than fifteen days prior to the deposition deadline.
c. Trial Exhibits - On or before November 8, 2013: A list of all exhibits it expects to offer by providing a numbered listing and permitting examination of such exhibits, designating on the list those exhibits it may offer only if the need arises.
d. Waiver of Objections: Any and all objections to the use of the witnesses, deposition testimony, discovery responses, or exhibits disclosed pursuant to the above subparagraphs, including any objection pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a) that a deponent is available to testify at the trial, shall be made a part of the pretrial order. Failure to list objections (except those under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 403) is a waiver of such objections, unless excused by the court for good cause shown.
a. Motions in limine challenging the admissibility of expert testimony at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 702 shall be filed by August 12, 2013. See Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The motions should be accompanied by a request for a hearing, if necessary. ...