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.

American Construction Hoist, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority

April 4, 2008

AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION HOIST, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, AND BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Bruce Guyton United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER

1. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), a scheduling conference was held in this cause on April 2, 2008. Present representing the plaintiff was attorney Charles Taylor, III. Present representing the defendants was attorney Joshua Walker. The following actions were taken:

2. JURISDICTION

In this case, the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court is not in dispute. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and have specifically consented to the undersigned.

3. SETTLEMENT/ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

(a) The possibility of settlement is unknown at this time, although the parties announced that they intend to schedule mediation. Counsel will advise the Court if the parties desire Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and the Court's involvement with regard to the same.

4. DISCLOSURE AND DISCOVERY

(a) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Meeting: The parties have held a discovery planning meeting as required by Rule 26(f).

(b) Discovery Plan: At the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties developed a discovery plan, and they will file it with the Court on or before April 10, 2008.

(c) Initial Disclosures: Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures will be made pursuant to the discovery plan.

(d) Expert Testimony: Disclosure of any expert testimony in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be made by the plaintiff on or before August 11, 2008, and by the defendant on or before September 10, 2008.

(e) Computer-Generated Animation: If any party intends to offer a computer-generated animation into evidence, the party shall disclose that intention at the time expert disclosures are made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). A copy of the animation shall be furnished to all other parties no later than 45 days prior to the filing of pretrial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) [or the close of expert discovery, if that is earlier]. By agreement of the parties, the date of delivery of the animation may be adjourned to no later than the date on which the pretrial order is filed.

(f) Status Conference on Damages Issue: The Court will conduct a status conference on October 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. on issues of damage calculation and submission of damage claims to the Court.

(g) Motions seeking a Daubert hearing must be filed on or before October 9, 2008 or they will be deemed waived.

(h) Evidence-Presentation Equipment: If either party intends to use electronic, mechanical or other equipment to display evidence at trial, the parties shall confer in an effort to agree on the size, type and location of equipment to be used in the courtroom. If the parties agree, they shall file their joint proposal on the date on which the final pretrial order is due. If the parties cannot agree, each party shall file its proposal on the date on which the pretrial order is due and may comment on the proposal filed by any other party within two business days thereafter.

(i) Pretrial Disclosures: On or before October 24, 2008, the parties shall make all pretrial disclosures specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), except ...


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.