Document no. 97. 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen S. Bartlett, et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL

Mutual Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc., et al.

O R D E R

As discussed with the parties at oral argument on October

30, 2009, in light of this court’s recent order granting

supplemental discovery to the plaintiffs because of a defense

discovery error, the court hereby enters the following amended 1

scheduling order: 

• Fact Discovery Completion 

(Except for Court-Ordered

Supplemental Discovery): November 15, 2009

• Plaintiffs’ Expert Depositions

Complete: November 18, 2009

• “DiBenedetto” Disclosure: November 18, 2009

• Defendants’ Supplemental 

Court-Ordered Production: December 17, 2009

• Plaintiffs’ Expert Report

Supplementation (If Necessary

In Light of Court-Ordered

Supplemental Discovery): January 8, 2010

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 98 Filed 11/06/09 Page 1 of 3
2

• Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Expert

Depositions Completed (If

Necessary In Light of 

Expert Report Supplementation): January 22, 2010

• Defendants’ Expert Report

Supplementation: January 29, 2010

• Defendants’ Expert Depositions

Completed: February 12, 2010

• Expert Discovery Completion: February 12, 2010

• Completion of All Discovery: February 12, 2010

• Challenges to Expert Testimony: February 19, 2010

• Summary Judgment: February 26, 2010

• Motions in Limine: 20 days prior to Final 

Pretrial Conference. 

Response/Objections due 

10 days prior to Final 

Pretrial Conference.

• Jury Selection: June 2, 2010

Expert depositions. The parties shall take immediate steps

to schedule all remaining expert depositions within the deadlines

set forth above, including plaintiffs’ supplemental expert

depositions (which will be limited to one half-day of 3.5 hours

each) and defendants’ expert depositions. The court is unlikely

to grant further extensions of the deposition deadlines.

Discovery disputes. As is the court’s practice, discovery

disputes will continue to be handled by the undersigned judge, as

opposed to the Magistrate Judge, in the normal course. Motions

to compel are disfavored. The party or counsel seeking

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 98 Filed 11/06/09 Page 2 of 3
3

discovery-related relief should confer with adverse counsel to

choose mutually available dates, and then contact the Deputy

Clerk to schedule a conference call with the court. The court

will inform counsel and parties what written materials, if any,

should be submitted in advance of the conference call.

Customary motions to compel discovery, while disfavored by

the undersigned judge, are nonetheless permissible. If counsel

prefer traditional discovery litigation to the conference call

procedure set forth above, any such motion to compel should

expressly request, in the title of the motion, a referral to the

United States Magistrate Judge. Such referral requests will

normally be granted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: November 6, 2009

cc: Bryan Ballew, Esq.

Keith M. Jensen, Esq.

Patrick J. O’Neal, Esq.

Christine M. Craig, Esq.

Timothy B. Beaupre, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger, Esq.

Joseph P. Thomas, Esq.

Paul J. Cosgrove, Esq.

Linda E. Maichl, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 98 Filed 11/06/09 Page 3 of 3