UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kristan L. Nason, et al.

v. Civil No. 09-cv-00001-JL

Progressive Northern

Insurance Company

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

June 22, 2009.

The case will proceed on Counts 1 and 2 only. Count 3 is

withdrawn, and Count 4 is not truly a count, but rather an

assertion of entitlement to a form of damages.

The agreed to portions of the parties’ proposed discovery

plans (documents no. 14 and 15) are approved as submitted, with

the following changes:

• Trial –- September 2010

• Summary Judgment –- April 15, 2010

• Discovery completed –- April 1, 2010

• Plaintiffs’ Expert Disclosure –- December 1, 2009

• Defendant’s Expert Disclosure –- February 1, 2010

Case 1:09-cv-00001-JL Document 17 Filed 06/22/09 Page 1 of 3
2

• Expert challenges –- March 1, 2010 (responses due 21 days

from challenge)

• Third party joinder -- October 1, 2009

• Third party actions -- September 15, 2009

• Pleading Amendment Deadline -- September 1, 2009 

• “DiBenedetto” disclosure deadline –- September 15, 2009

Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at

the conference, the following affirmative defenses are stricken

without prejudice to being reinstated on request if warranted by

the evidence: Defendant’s defense “B” (comparative negligence).

Paragraph 19 of the defendant’s Answer is modified to

indicate that the defendant neither confirm nor denies the

plaintiffs’ corresponding allegation.

Discovery disputes. Discovery disputes will be handled by

the undersigned judge in the normal course. No motion to compel

is necessary. The party or counsel seeking 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 Deputy Clerk will inform

counsel and parties what written materials, if any, should be

submitted in advance of the conference call.

Case 1:09-cv-00001-JL Document 17 Filed 06/22/09 Page 2 of 3
3

Customary motions to compel discovery, while disfavored by

the undersigned judge, are nonetheless permissible. Such motions

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

to the United States Magistrate Judge. Such referral requests

will normally be granted.

Summary Judgment. The parties and counsel are advised that

compliance with Rule 56 and Local Rule 7.2(b), regarding

evidentiary support for factual assertions, and specification and

delineation of material issues of disputed fact, will be

required.

Service of process costs. The plaintiff’s motion for

miscellaneous relief (document no. 12) is granted in part. The

defendant shall reimburse the plaintiff $156, due to plaintiffs’

counsel by July 1, 2009. Any deadlines set forth above will be

tolled one day for the plaintiffs only for each day after July 1

that the defendant’s obligation to reimburse remains unsatisfied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 22, 2009

cc: Jonathan S. Frizzell, Esq.

Philip R. Waystack, Jr., Esq.

Wilfred J. Desmarais, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:09-cv-00001-JL Document 17 Filed 06/22/09 Page 3 of 3