The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER
This matter is before me on the Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Trial Preparation Conference Order [Doc. # 48, filed 2/23/06] (the "Motion"). The Motion requests that the deadlines for expert witness designations be extended, that a separate discovery cut-off be established for expert witnesses, and that the motion for filing Rule 702 motions be extended. As grounds for the Motion, the plaintiff states that the case involves an enormous number of documents, stated to exceed 8 million, and that 20 attorneys have been working full time to review documents to be disclosed through discovery. Because of the enormous volume of documents, the plaintiff states that "it is not workable t try to complete fact and expert discovery on the same schedule."
I find that the plaintiff has established good cause justifying the requested extensions. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks extensions of the deadlines for expert witness designations and that a separate discovery cut-off be established for expert witnesses. The case schedule is modified to the following extent:
Expert Discovery Cut-Off: August 25, 2006
(All expert discovery must be completed by the expert discovery cut-off.)
(a) The parties shall designate all experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before May 29, 2006
(b) The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before July 28, 2006
In addition, I respectfully RECOMMEND that the district judge extend the deadline for the filing of Rule 702 motions to and including August 30, 2006.
FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties have 10 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific, written objections. A party's failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the recommendation by the district judge, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. In re Key Energy Resources Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir 2000). A party's objections to this recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...