Opinion
4:17-CV-02824-JST
06-15-2022
RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants.
BROWN RUDNICK LLP LEO J. PRESIADO Email Michael J. Bowe (admitted pro hac vice) Lauren Tabaksblat (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Plaintiff
BROWN RUDNICK LLP LEO J. PRESIADO Email Michael J. Bowe (admitted pro hac vice) Lauren Tabaksblat (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Plaintiff
[PROPOSED] ORDER
HON. JON S. TIGAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court hereby sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
| EVENT | CURRENT DEADLINE | PROPOSED DEADLINE |
| Expert disclosures | June 21, 2022 | September 19, 2022 |
| Expert rebuttal reports | August 18, 2022 | November 18, 2022 |
| Expert discovery cut-off | September 6, 2022 | December 6, 2022 |
| Dispositive motions due | September 13, 2022 | December 19, 2022 |
| Oppositions to dispositive motions due | October 25, 2022 | February 6, 2023 |
| Replies to dispositive motions due | November 11, 2022 | March 6, 2023 |
| Dispositive motions hearing | December 22, 2022 | April 20, 2023 |
| Pretrial conference statement | February 24, 2023 | June 23, 2023 |
| Pretrial conference | March 3, 2023 | June 29, 2023 |
| Trial | March 28, 2023 | July 31, 2023 |
This case will be tried to a jury.
Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The parties shall comply with the Court's standing orders, which are available at cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders.
The parties must take all necessary steps to conduct discovery, compel discovery, hire counsel, retain experts, and manage their calendars so that they can complete discovery in a timely manner and appear at trial on the noticed and scheduled dates. All counsel must arrange their calendars to accommodate these dates, or arrange to substitute or associate in counsel who can.
Trial dates set by this Court should be regarded as firm. Requests for continuance are disfavored. The Court will not consider any event subsequently scheduled by a party, party controlled witness, expert or attorney that conflicts with the above trial dates as good cause to grant a continuance. The Court will not consider the pendency of settlement discussions as good cause to grant a continuance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.