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.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Harrison

June 17, 2008

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN M. HARRISON, CELIA H. HARRISON, AND SWEETWATER VALLEY FARM, INC., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the consent of the parties, for all further proceedings, including entry of judgment [Doc. 8]. The Court conducted a status conference on June 11, 2008. Attorney Michael Atkins was present for the plaintiff. Attorney Louis Crossley was present for the defendants.

The defendants made an oral motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages for separate trials, pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The Court found that the motion was well-taken, and it is GRANTED, as follows: the Court will conduct a trial, non-jury, on October 27, 2008 on the issues of whether the plaintiff has the right to close or otherwise restrict the use of the crossing by the defendants, and if so, whether such right gives rise to a right of compensation in favor of the defendants. If the Court rules in the affirmative on those issues, the Court will schedule a trial, with a jury, on the issue of the amount of compensation damages.

The Court will conduct a pretrial conference on October 16, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. The parties will have time, following the non-jury trial, to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law.

As to other scheduling matters, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Expert Testimony: The parties report that disclosure of expert testimony in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) is not applicable.

(2) 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.

(3) Pretrial Disclosures: On or before September 12, 2008, the parties shall make all pretrial disclosures specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), except as to witnesses (see 7(g) and (h) below).

(4) All Discovery: All discovery, including the taking of depositions "for evidence," shall be completed on or before September 26, 2008. (Motions to compel must be filed on or before August 26, 2008.)

(5) PRETRIAL ORDERS AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCES: Unless counsel are otherwise directed by the Court,*fn1 the following shall govern with regard to pretrial orders and conferences in this particular case.

An agreed pretrial order shall be filed with the clerk on or before September 26, 2008. This order shall contain the following recitals:

(a) Jurisdiction.

(b) That the pleadings are amended to conform to the ...


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.