Wright v. L'Optique Inc
| Laura Wright |
| L'Optique Inc |
| 6:2024cv00311 |
| January 22, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Timothy M Cain |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 18 TEXT ORDER: Counsel and parties are required to make a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the District of South Carolina. If a dispute arises regarding discovery, and such good faith efforts are unsuccessful, prior to filing a motion to compel, motion to quash or other motion related to a discovery dispute, counsel for the parties shall first be required to follow the following procedure.Counsel shall inform Judge Cain's Civil Case Manager Kay McAlister in writing at kay_mcalister@scd.uscourts.gov that a discovery dispute exists that requires input from the judge. Counsel shall prepare a joint report identifying the disputed issues and summarizing the positions of the parties. This report shall set forth what efforts have been made to resolve the dispute. If the dispute involves a written interrogatory, request for production or admission, deposition, or subpoena, a copy of the discovery request and the written response should be attached to the informal joint report. Parties should not attach the entire set of interrogatories, request for admission, etc. but only those portions that are disputed. The joint report and attachments do not have to be filed and should be sent to chambers at cain_ecf@scd.uscourts.gov.The report is not a brief and should not set forth arguments or legal authority. That will come later if informal efforts to resolve the dispute are unsuccessful. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 provides that the federal rules should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. The purpose of this procedure is to provide the parties an opportunity to resolve some or all discovery disputes more quickly and in a less expensive manner than the formal process set forth in the Federal Rules, while at the same time conserving scarce, limited judicial resources.The joint report shall be no longer than ten pages in length double spaced. It must contain an affirmation that counsel have conferred in good faith to resolve the disputed issues. SUCH EFFORTS MUST INVOLVE IN-PERSON MEETINGS OR TELEPHONE CONFERENCES. Consultation solely by electronic mail, facsimile or regular mail is not sufficient.Upon receipt of the joint report, the court will decide if a status conference or telephone conference should be held address the dispute and advise the parties accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/11/24. (kmca) |
| Filing 17 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 6/17/2024, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 7/15/2024, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 8/19/2024, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 9/17/2024, Discovery due by 9/17/2024, Mediation Due by 9/27/2024, Motions due by 9/30/2024, Jury Selection Deadline 12/2/2024 or sixty (60) days after dispositive motions have been resolved. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 03/08/2024. (jens) Modified on 3/8/2024 to edit docket text (jens). |
| Filing 15 Plaintiff's Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Laura Wright.(Bowen, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 14 Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by L'Optique Inc.(Satterfield, Andreas) |
| Filing 13 Joint Rule 26 Outline of Discovery Plan by L'Optique Inc, Laura Wright.(Satterfield, Andreas) Modified on 3/6/2024: to add joint filer as listed (kmca). |
| Filing 12 Joint Rule 26(f) Report and Joint ADR Statement/Certification by L'Optique Inc, Laura Wright. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Satterfield, Andreas) Modified on 3/6/2024: to add joint filer as listed (kmca). Modified on 3/7/2024: to add text (ADR) (kmca). |
| Filing 11 MEDIATION ORDER. Mediation Due by 7/24/2024. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/1/24. (kmca) |
Filing 10
SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 2/21/2024, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 3/6/2024, ADR Statement/Certification due by 3/6/2024, Rule 26 Report due by 3/6/2024, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 4/16/2024, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 5/16/2024, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 6/17/2024, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 6/17/2024, Discovery due by 7/17/2024, Motions due by 7/31/2024, Jury Selection Deadline 9/30/2024 or sixty (60) days after dispositive motions have been resolved. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/1/24. (kmca)
|
| Filing 9 Plaintiff's Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Laura Wright.(Bowen, Elizabeth) (Main Document 9 replaced on 1/30/2024: to replace with corrected document (question H) as provided by filing user) (kmca). |
| Filing 8 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by L'Optique Inc. (Satterfield, Andreas) |
| Filing 5 CLERK'S NOTICE: Plaintiff's Local Rule 26.01 Interrogatories (including section H) are due fourteen (14) days after removal. (kmca) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by L'Optique Inc.(kmca) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2023-CP-23-06535. (Filing fee $405 receipt number ASCDC-11539759), filed by L'Optique Inc. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents)(kmca) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Wright v. L'Optique Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Laura Wright | |
| Represented By: | Elizabeth Marie Bowen |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: L'Optique Inc | |
| Represented By: | Andreas Neal Satterfield, Jr |
| Represented By: | Matthew Blasko |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
