A judge for U.S. District Court of Connecticut has approved a timetable for the anti-steering lawsuit being waged after Safelite sued state Attorney General George Jepsen and Thomas Leonardi, insurance commissioner, to halt Public Act 13-67 (an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work), which went into effect January 1. Safelite’s appeal to the Second Circuit Court is pending over the lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.
“All discovery will be completed 8/20/14, as follows: Plaintiff’s expert reports will be served by 7/16/14, defendants’ experts’ reports will be served by 8/6/14; and plaintiff’s rebuttal reports will be served by 8/20/14,” write judge Janet Bond Arterton in court documents.
After a pre-filing conference, the judge orders that any dispositive motions be filed by September 5, 2014.
“If dispositive motions are filed, the parties will be expected to be trial ready 3/1/15,” the judge writes. “The Trial Memoranda will be filed 30 days after ruling on dispositive motions. If no dispositive motions are filed, Trial Memoranda will be filed by 10/5/14 and the parties will be expected to be trial ready 11/1/14.”
The parties proposed the following timetable:
Fact discovery closes: June 30, 2014
Plaintiffs’ expert reports due: July 16, 2014
Defendants’ expert reports due: August 6, 2014
Plaintiffs’ rebuttal reports due: August 20, 2014
Dispositive and Daubert motions due: September 5, 2014
Oppositions to dispositive and Daubert motions due: September 26, 2014
Reply briefs on dispositive and Daubert motions due: October 10, 2014
“The parties now intend to conduct discovery in support of all of their respective claims and defenses so that this case can proceed to trial,” attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants write in court documents.
Judge Arterton granted the proposed schedule.
A Circuit Court judge had denied Safelite’s request for an emergency stay to halt enforcement of Connecticut’s anti-steering law pending appeal. She ordered that Safelite’s motions for an injunction and for an expedited appeal be referred to a three-judge motions’ panel.
The Second Circuit Court has not made any new decisions at press time.