Butterworth et al v. Murphy et al, No. 1:2009cv00519 - Document 30 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER AND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER (Please Note: This docket text may not contain the entire contents of the attached Order. It is your responsibility to read the attached Order and download it for future reference . Direct any questions to the Chambers of the Judge who entered this Order.)Plaintiff Expert Witness ID due by 9/30/2010., Defendant Expert Witness ID due by 10/29/2010., Discovery completed by 11/19/2010., Dispositive Motions due by 12/31 /2010., Mediation To End by 12/31/2010., Pretrial Statements due by 1/31/2011., Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/1/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. William M. Skretny., Jury Trial set for 4/5/2011 09:30 AM before Hon. William M. Skretny.Motions terminated: 24 MOTION to Compel filed by Robert Butterworth, Kerry Butterworth, 23 MOTION to Compel filed by Robert Butterworth, Kerry Butterworth.Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 7/21/2010. (JRA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Butterworth et al v. Murphy et al Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________ Kerry Butterworth et al., Hon. Hugh B. Scott Plaintiff, 09CV519S Decision & Order and Amended Scheduling Order v. Edward Murphy et al., Defendant. _________________________________________ Before the Court is the plaintiff s motion to compel discovery (Docket No. 24). Background The plaintiffs, Kerry and Robert Butterworth (referred to collectively as Butterworth ), residents of Pennsylvania, commenced this action against Edward and Silvy Murphy based upon alleged injuries Kerry Butterworth suffered while renting the defendants home in Hammondsport, New York. In addition to the personal injury claim based upon negligence, the plaintiffs assert a loss of consortium claim on behalf of Robert Butterworth. (See complaint at Docket No. 7-2).1 1 This action was originally commenced in the Southern District of New York, and was transferred to the Western District of New York upon the parties stipulation to change venue in this matter. (Docket No. 7-7). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Motion to Compel The plaintiff seek to compel the defendants to produce the defendants for depositions and to provide access to the premises for inspection of the site of the alleged accident. (Docket No. 24-2). With respect to the site inspection, the defendants state that they advised plaintiff s counsel that the inspection could not take place until after the deposition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff s deposition was held on October 14, 2009. However, the plaintiff did not renew the request for a site inspection until April 12, 2010. The defendants assert that they do not oppose the inspection as long as they are provided an opportunity to respond to any further expert disclosure provided by the plaintiff. (Docket No. 26 at page 3). As for the deposition of the Murphys, the defendants note that the parties had some discussions in which the plaintiff had stated an intention to waive the deposition of Edward Murphy.2 The defendants do not oppose the deposition of Edward Murphy, but asked that it take place after June 8, 2010 and by videoconference so that Murphy does not have to travel from his North Carolina home The defendants assert that the plaintiff has agreed to conduct the deposition by videoconference. . (Docket No. 26 at page 4). The motion to compel is granted. The defendant s shall permit the plaintiff to inspect the premises within 30 days of the date of this Order. Further, the deposition of Edward Murphy shall take place, by videoconference unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, within 30 days of the date of this Order. The following schedule shall apply for the remainder of the pre-trial 2 The notice of deposition refers only to the defendant (Docket No. 24-3) and does not specifically identify either Edward or Silvy Murphy. The correspondence attached to the motion papers reflects that the parties discussions contemplated only the deposition of Edward Murphy. (Docket No. 26-6). 2 proceedings: 1. This case has been referred automatically to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program. The parties are encouraged to continue efforts to resolve this matter through mediation. 2. The referral to mediation shall terminate on December 31, 2010. In the event that settlement is not reached, the case will progress toward trial, as scheduled below. 3. The plaintiff shall serve supplemented expert disclosure by September 30, 2010; the defendant shall serve any supplemented experts disclosure no later than October 29, 2010. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before November 19, 2010. 4. In the event settlement is not effectuated through mediation, dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed no later than December 31, 2010. 5. In the event no dispositive motions are filed, pretrial statements in strict compliance with Local Rule 16.1(I) shall be filed and served no later than January 31, 2011. 6. No extension of the above cutoff dates will be granted except upon written joint motion, filed prior to the cutoff date, showing good cause for the extension. 7. A final pretrial conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(d) and Local Rule 16.1(j) will be held on February 1, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. with Judge Skretny. 14. Trial is set to commence on April 5, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Skretny. Counsel's attention is directed to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(f) calling for sanctions in the event of failure to comply with any direction of this Court. So Ordered. / s / Hugh B. Scott United States Magistrate Judge Western District of New York Buffalo, New York July 21, 2010 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
