DAVID WAXSE, Magistrate Judge
On February 13, 2002, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), the court conducted a scheduling conference in this case with the parties. Plaintiff appeared through counsel Ronald L. Schneider. Defendant Prison Health Services appeared through counsel Eric Kraft. Defendant United States of America appeared by Asst. U.S. Attorney Robert A. Olsen. After consultation with the parties, the court now enters the following scheduling order in this case:
As used in this scheduling order, the term "plaintiff includes plaintiffs as well as counterclaimants, cross — claimants, third — party — plaintiffs, intervenors, and any other parties who assert affirmative claims for relief. The term "defendant" includes defendants as well as counterclaim defendants, cross — claim defendants, third — party — defendants, and any other parties who are defending against affirmative claims for relief.
1. Alternative Dispute Resolution.
a. By March 1, 2002, plaintiff shall submit to defendant a good faith proposal to settle the case. By March 15, 2002, defendant shall make a good faith response to plaintiff's proposal, either accepting the proposal or submitting defendant's own good faith proposal to settle the case. By March 22, 2002, the parties shall submit independently, by way of letter addressed to the magistrate judge (but not the district judge), their confidential statements concerning settlement efforts, current evaluations of the case, and views concerning future settlement negotiations. These reports need not be served upon opposing parties and shall not be filed with the Clerk's Office. The court may thereafter order participation in an alternative dispute resolution process.
b. Settlement may be enhanced by use of mediation. Counsel shall provide the name of an agreed — upon mediator or other neutral to the court no later than March 22, 2002. If they are unable to reach an agreement on this issue, each shall suggest a mediator and the court will select a mediator, Mediation shall be held no later than May 30, 2002.
2. Discovery.
a. The parties shall exchange by February 20, 2002 the information required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1). In order to facilitate settlement negotiations and to avoid unnecessary expense, the parties have agreed that, without any need for formal requests for production, copies of the various documents described in the parties' respective Rule 26(a)(1) — disclosures shall be made available for inspection and copying by February 20, 2002. The parties are reminded that, although Rule 26(a)(1) is now keyed to disclosure of information that the disclosing party "may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment," as made clear by the advisory committee notes to the 2000 — amendments to that rule, this also requires a party to disclose information it may use to support its denial or rebuttal of the allegations, claim, or defense of another party. In addition to other sanctions that may be applicable, a party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1) is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).
b. All discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by August 15, 2002.
c. No party shall serve more than 35 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, to any other party.
d. There shall be no more than 10 depositions by plaintiff and 10 by defendant.
e. Each deposition shall be limited to 4 hours, except for the deposition(s) of plaintiff, which shall be limited to 6 hours. All depositions shall be governed by the written guidelines that are available on the district's Internet website:
(http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/attorney/depoguidelines.pdf)
f. Disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2), including reports from retained experts, shall be served by plaintiff by April 1, 2002, and by defendant by May 10, 2002. The parties have stipulated that rebuttal experts will not be permitted in this case. The parties shall serve any objections to such disclosures (other than objections pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702-05, 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 11 days after service of the disclosures upon them. 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) has been provided, such as lists of prior testimony and publications). These objections need not extend to the admissibility of the expert's proposed testimony. If such technical objections are served, counsel shall confer or make a reasonable effort to confer consistent with requirements of D. Kan. Rule 37.2 before filing any motion based on those objections. As noted below, any motion to compel discovery in compliance with D. Kan. Rules 7.1 and 37.2 must be filed and served within 30 days of the default or service of the response, answer, or objection which is the subject of the motion, unless the time for filing such a motion is extended for good cause shown; otherwise, the objection to the default, response, answer, or objection shall be deemed waived. See D. Kan. Rule 37.1(b).
g. The parties shall complete all Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 physical or mental examinations by May 10, 2002. If the parties disagree about the need for or the scope of such an examination, a formal motion shall be filed sufficiently in advance of this deadline in order to allow the motion to be fully briefed by the parties and decided by the court before the examination deadline.
h. Supplementations of disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) shall be served at such times and under such circumstances as required by that rule. In addition, such supplemental disclosures shall be served 40 days before the deadline for completion of all discovery. The supplemental disclosures served 40 days before the deadline for completion of all discovery, which are intended to replace what this court traditionally has called "final witness and exhibit lists," must identify the universe of all witnesses and exhibits that probably or even might be used at trial. The rationale for the mandatory supplemental disclosures 40 days before the discovery cutoff is to put opposing counsel in a realistic position to make strategic, tactical, and economic judgments about whether to take a particular deposition (or pursue follow — up "written" discovery) concerning a witness or exhibit disclosed by another party before the time allowed for discovery expires. Counsel should bear in mind that seldom should anything be included in the final Rule 26(a)(3) — disclosures, which as explained below usually are filed 20 days before trial, that has not previously appeared in the initial Rule 26(a)(1) — disclosures or a timely Rule 26(e) supplement thereto; otherwise, the witness or exhibit probably will be excluded at trial, See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).
i. At the final pretrial conference after the close of discovery, the court will set a deadline, usually about 20 days prior to the trial date, for the parties to file their final disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3)(A), (B) (C). As indicated above, if a witness or exhibit appears on a final Rule 26(a)(3) — disclosure that has not previously been included in a Rule 26(a)(1) — disclosure (or a timely supplement thereto), that witness or exhibit probably will be excluded at trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). D. Kan Rule 16.2(e), entitled "Witness and Exhibit Lists and Disclosures," which the court is in the process of amending, will not be applied in this case.
j. To avoid the filing of unnecessary motions, the court encourages the parties to utilize stipulations regarding discovery procedures. However, this does not apply to extensions of time that interfere with the deadlines to complete all discovery, for the briefing or hearing of a motion, or for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 29; D. Kan. Rule 6.1(a). Nor does this apply to modifying the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) concerning experts' reports. See D. Kan. Rule 26.4(b),
3. Motions.
a. Any motion for leave to join additional parties or to otherwise amend the pleadings shall be filed by March 1, 2002.
b. Provided that such defenses have been timely preserved, any motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, venue, propriety of the parties, or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted shall be filed by March 27, 2002.
c. All other potentially dispositive motions shall be filed by September 13, 2002 All motions to exclude testimony of expert witnesses pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702-05, 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, shall be filed by the deadline set for dispositive motions.
d. Any motion to compel discovery in compliance with D. Kan. Rules 7.1 and 37.2 shall be filed and served within 30 days of the default or service of the response, answer, or objection which is the subject of the motion, unless the time for filing such a motion is extended for good cause shown. Otherwise, the objection to the default, response, answer, or objection shall be waived. See D. Kan. Rule 37.1(b).
4. Other Matters.
a. By May 31, 2002, any party asserting comparative fault shall identify all persons or entities whose fault is to be compared.
b. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(d), a final pretrial conference is scheduled for August 30, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Room #219 at 500 State Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas. Unless otherwise notified, the Honorable David J. Waxse will conduct the conference. The parties shall prepare one proposed final pretrial order. No later than August 23, 2002, defendant shall submit to the judge who will conduct the conference (but not file with the Clerk's Office) both a "hard" copy of the proposed pretrial order and a computer diskette (WordPerfect 9.0, or earlier version, 3.5 inch format, labeled with case name and number) containing the proposed pretrial order; in lieu of the above — described computer diskette, the proposed pretrial order may be submitted by way of a similarly identified attachment to an e-mail addressed to the judge's administrative assistant. The proposed pretrial order shall be in the form attached to this scheduling order, and the hard copy shall be signed by counsel and all unrepresented parties.
c. The parties expect the trial of this case to take approximately 4 to 6 days. The court has set the case for trial on a trial calendar that will begin on April 8, 2003. The trial setting may be changed only by order of the judge presiding over the trial.
d. The parties are not prepared to consent to trial by a magistrate judge at this time.
e. The arguments and authorities section of briefs or memoranda submitted shall not exceed 30 pages, absent an order of the court. This scheduling order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Event Deadline/Setting Plaintiff's settlement proposal March 1, 2002 Defendant's settlement counter — proposal March 15, 2002 Confidential settlement reports to magistrate judge March 22, 2002 Identification of agreed — upon mediator or other ADR neutral to magistrate judge March 22, 2002 ADR process completed May 30, 2002 Settlement conference with court (if applicable) N/A Initial disclosures exchanged February 20, 2002 All discovery completed August 15, 2002 Early discovery completed (if applicable) N/A Experts disclosed by plaintiff April 1, 2002 Experts disclosed by defendant May 10, 2002 Rebuttal experts disclosed (if applicable) N/A Independent medical examinations (if applicable) May 10, 2002 Supplementation of disclosures 40 days before discovery deadline Preliminary witness and exhibit disclosures (if applicable) N/A Jointly proposed protective order submitted to court (if applicable) N/A Motion and brief in support of proposed protective order (only if N/A parties disagree about need for and/or scope of order) Motions to join additional parties or otherwise amend the pleadings March 1, 2002 Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, venue, propriety of the parties, or failure to state a claim March 27, 2002 All other potentially dispositive motions, e.g., summary judgment, challenges to admissibility of expert testimony, etc. September 13, 2002 Comparative fault identification (if applicable) May 31, 2002 Status conference (if applicable) N/A Final pretrial conference August 30, 2002 @ 9:00 AM Proposed pretrial order due August 23, 2002 Trial April 8, 2003