Weinstein v. Harmon

Weinstein v. Harmon, No. 139-3-13 Bncv (Wesley, J., July 24, 2014). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Bennington Unit Docket No. 139-3-13 Bncv Weinstein vs. Harmon et al ENTRY REGARDING MOTION Title: Motion In-person rule 16.2 conf to revisit pret (Motion 14) Filer: Maureen Harmon Attorney: Christopher D. Roy Filed Date: June 25, 2014 No response filed The motion is DENIED Decision Denying Defendants’ Motion for a Rule 16.2 Conference Defendants request the Court schedule a status conference to discuss the discovery schedule. Defendants assert multiple attempts to workout discovery obligations and deadlines have failed. Defendants believe a status conference with the Court to discuss obligations under V.R.C.P. 16.2 would resolve many of the discovery issues in this case. The Court set a discovery schedule, as stipulated by the parties, on December 23, 2013. The Court also issued an order on discovery motions on April 7, 2014 that discussed discovery requirements. The parties have until September 2, 2014 to complete discovery. Failure to follow the discovery schedule may result in sanctions. See Carpenter v. Cent. Vt. Med. Ctr., 170 Vt. 565, 568 (1999). V.R.C.P. 16.2 does not require the Court to hold a status conference after it signed a stipulated discovery order, and in the absence of proper framing of claimed discovery disputes as contemplated by the rules of discovery. The Court may hold a discovery conference, but the moving party must fulfill the requirements of V.R.C.P. 26(f). See Poplaski v. Lamphere, 152 Vt. 251, 255 (1989) (discussing the Court’s ability to set a discovery conference). V.R.C.P. 26(f) requires a statement of issues, a proposed plan, proposed limits on discovery, other proposed orders, and negotiation between the attorneys to resolve their discovery disputes before approaching the Court. Defendants’ motion satisfies none of these requirements. Moreover, counsel may file motions to compel disclosure if they follow V.R.C.P. 26(h) and make their arguments in particularity. WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED : Because the parties have failed to exercise their good faith obligation to attempt to resolve disputes as to discovery without involving the Court, the Court declines to set a status or discovery conference.| Electronically signed on July 24, 2014 at 02:28 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). ______________________________________ John P. Wesley Superior Court Judge Notifications: Lloyd J. Weinstein (ERN 6012), Attorney for Plaintiff Jennifer Weinstein Harry R. Ryan (ERN 1833), Attorney for Defendant Tommy A. Harmon Defendant Tommy A. Harmon, Jr. on behalf o Christopher D. Roy (ERN 1352), Attorney for Defendant Maureen Harmon Defendant Maureen Harmon Christopher D. Roy (ERN 1352), Attorney for Defendant Nelson Harmon Christopher D. Roy (ERN 1352), Attorney for Defendant Rocking Stone Farm Homeowners Christopher D. Roy (ERN 1352), Attorney for Defendant Rocking Stone Farm Christopher D. Roy (ERN 1352), Attorney for Defendant Jeanmarie Leonard Christopher D. Roy (ERN 1352), Attorney for Defendant Carol Sayour Defendant Nelson Harmon, on behalf of Lloyd J. Weinstein (ERN 6012), Attorney for Defendant Lloyd J. Weinstein Lloyd J. Weinstein (ERN 6012), Attorney for Defendant Weinstein Groupe, P.C., The wesley