Sharber v. Bank of America, N.A. ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SHEILA D. SHARBER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 19-2418-DDC BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiff has filed an unopposed motion to amend the scheduling order filed on September 19, 2019 (ECF No. 36). For good cause shown, the request is granted and the scheduling order is amended as follows: If expert testimony is used in this case, disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), including reports from retained experts, must be served by plaintiff by Error! Reference source not found., and by defendant by Error! Reference source not found.. Plaintiff’s experts must be deposed by January 2, 2019. Defendant’s experts must be deposed by February 26, 2020. The parties must serve any objections to such disclosures (other than objections pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702-705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), or similar case law), within 14 days after service of the disclosures. These objections should be confined to technical objections related to the sufficiency of the written expert disclosures (e.g., whether all of the information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) O:\SCHEDULINGORDERS\19-2418-DDC-ASO.DOCX has been provided) and need not extend to the admissibility of the expert=s proposed testimony. If such technical objections are served, counsel must confer or make a reasonable effort to confer consistent with D. Kan. Rule 37.2 before filing any motion based on those objections. All other provisions of the original scheduling order shall remain in effect. The schedule adopted in this amended scheduling order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated October 23, 2019, at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ James P. O’Hara James P. O’Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge 2