Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Amacher v. City of Tullahoma

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Winchester

November 9, 2016




         Before the Court is the parties' joint motion to stay all deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order pending the outcome of mediation [Doc. 25]. On October 12, 2016, the Court granted the parties' request for judicially-hosted mediation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 653(b) [Doc. 24], and the mediation is currently scheduled for December 7, 2016. In the pending motion, which was not filed until October 31, 2016, the deadline for completing all discovery, the parties claim that discovery is not complete because Plaintiff has declined to authorize the release of certain mental health records and Plaintiffs counsel has declined to permit Plaintiff to be deposed due to pending criminal charges against Plaintiff [Doc. 25 at Page ID # 73]. No attempt was made by the parties to address this issue prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline. The parties state that, if the matter is not resolved during the December 7, 2016 mediation, the parties will require an amended scheduling order since discovery is not complete [id.].

         If the parties are unable to resolve this matter during judicially-hosted mediation, it appears that issues that may have made it difficult for Plaintiff to engage in certain discovery in this matter will continue to exist. The parties have not presented any information suggesting that Plaintiffs pending criminal matters are related to, or part of, Plaintiffs civil case against Defendant. As a result, there is nothing pending before the Court at this time that would justify staying the civil case indefinitely or waiting until after the mediation to amend the Scheduling Order.

         Accordingly, the parties' joint motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the Court's Scheduling Order [Doc. 21] is amended as follows:

         5. Disclosure and Discovery.

         (f) Final Witness List. On or before January 3, 2017, the parties shall provide to all other parties and file with the Court a final witness list in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i). Within five (5) days after service of this final witness list, the list may be supplemented. After that time, the list may be supplemented only with leave of the court and for good cause.

         (g) All Discovery. All discovery undertaken pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 through 37, including without limitation the taking of depositions "for evidence" and requests for admissions, shall be completed by January 17, 2017.

         (h) Pretrial Disclosures. On or before February 14, 2017, the parties shall make the pretrial disclosures specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3)(A) (ii) and (iii). (Deposition testimony and exhibit list). All deposition testimony to be offered into evidence must be disclosed to all other parties on or before this date.

         6. Other Scheduling Matters.

         (b) Dispositive Motions: All dispositive motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 and all motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 shall be filed as soon as possible, but no later than January 31, 2017. The failure to timely file such motions will be grounds to summarily deny them.

         (c) Motions in Limine. Any motions in limine must be filed no later than March 21, 2017. Any response to a motion in limine will be due within five (5) days. Any reply will be due within two (2) days after the response is filed.

         (d) Special Requests to Instruct for Jury Trial: Pursuant to Local Rule 51.1, requests for jury instructions shall be submitted to the Court no later than March 21, 2017, and shall be supported by citations of authority pursuant to Local Rule 7.4. A copy of the prepared jury instructions should be sent as an electronic mail attachment to leechambers@tned.

         The parties shall confer and submit a joint proposal for jury instructions to the extent possible. Before submitting proposed instructions to the Court, the parties must attempt to resolve any disagreements. If not submitted jointly, each set of proposed instructions must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the other parties in an effort to resolve any disputed instructions.

         The Court uses the Sixth Circuit Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions as its model in formulating the final instructions given to the jury; therefore, all proposed jury instructions must follow their form of the pattern instructions. The parties shall not submit proposed instructions for matters common to both civil and criminal cases ...

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.