FLASH: Trial Date Set

Judge Brook Hedge Releases Scheduling Order

A number of documents have hit the clerk’s office in the last day; several pertain to the plaintiff motion to subpoena the Price, Ward and Zaborsky phone and e-mail records and the subsequent defense objections on privacy grounds and their efforts to keep related motions sealed:

08/16/2010  Order Sealing Filings Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion For Issuance of a Commission signed in chambers by Judge Hedge efiled, eserved and docketed.

But today’s headline is the trial date. 

As per the plaintiff’s Proposed Scheduling Order, Judge Brook Hedge agreed and set June 13, 2011, as the trial date.  Nine months and twenty-seven days away.  Hedge also keeps discovery open until next March 15.  Her full order follows.

9 comments for “FLASH: Trial Date Set

  1. Deb
    08/17/2010 at 12:08 PM

    You knew the Plaintiff’s proposal needed to be adopted.

    • chilaw79
      08/17/2010 at 12:19 PM

      D. C. Superior Court is not the “rocket docket.” Nine months is pretty fast for D. C. Superior Court, especially if every single motion is going to be opposed. The parties have not begun on an amicable note and my prediction is it will go downhill from here unless Judge Hedge steps in and lectures the parties.

      • Hoya Loya
        08/17/2010 at 12:49 PM

        Looks like we can chalk up a win for Covington.

        chilaw: what is the policy in D.C. towards amended scheduling orders (e.g. if the case is slowed by motions or if a particular line of discovery proves fruitful but requires more time to fully investigate)?

        A shame about the motion to seal (would like to see files open to the public as a matter of general principle, not just in this case) but then again, it didn’t appear to have been opposed.

        • Craig
          08/17/2010 at 1:32 PM

          WaPo’s Keith Alexander offers this in his update: “Although a schedule has been set, trial dates, especially those in civil cases, are often fluid depending on the progress made by either side.”

        • chilaw79
          08/17/2010 at 2:56 PM

          Liberally granted in my experience. The parties are supposed to let the court know about the progress of discovery and any likely slippage in court dates.

  2. Michael
    08/17/2010 at 12:09 PM

    Yee, give ’em another 10 months to scheme and simmer.

    • AnnaZed
      08/17/2010 at 12:53 PM

      I know, yippie! ::sigh::

  3. Clio
    08/17/2010 at 8:48 PM

    Thanks, Brook. Now, let’s have Covington descend upon the “family” and its enablers, both the direct and indirect variety. Who will be the first to be deposed — Scott or Lisa G.?

    Why wasn’t the motion to seal opposed? Was that a smooth move or a minor oversight on the part of Covington? I don’t understand the strategy here.

    • chilaw79
      08/17/2010 at 9:13 PM

      Covington has ten days to file an opposition (not that they need to take the entire time period). I’ve lost track, but I do not think it has been ten days yet.

      They have won a victory on the scheduling order and a partial victory in that Judge Hedge has now ordered the parties to make sure they file general pleadings that can be made public (if they want to file other pleadings under seal). I think this shows Judge Hedge knows the public is watching this case.

Comments are closed.