HURST BOILER & WELDING COMPANY INC v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
HURST BOILER & WELDING 	:
COMPANY, INC., 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-51 (LAG)
:
EVANSTON INSURANCE 	:
COMPANY, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
:
AMENDED SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER
Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Case Deadlines (Motion)
(Doc. 41). Therein, the Parties seek to extend the case deadlines and participate in
mediation on July 15, 2026. (Id. ¶ 10). The Parties represent that they diligently conducted
discovery and are at the disclosure of expert phase with a delay in expert reports. (Id. ¶¶ 11–
16). Nothing suggests that any party will be prejudiced by an extension, rather the Court
finds good cause to grant the extension to allow Parties to further negotiate and complete
disclosures.
The Parties’ Motion (Doc. 41) is GRANTED. The Court hereby ORDERS that the
deadlines in the original Scheduling and Discovery Order (Doc. 17) are extended through
and including the following dates:
1. 	Defendant must disclose the identity of any expert witness on or before Friday,
July 31, 2026.
Any rebuttal must be submitted within thirty (30) days after the other party’s
disclosure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii).
2. 	Expert reports shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Any
supplemental expert reports must be served on or before Monday, August 31, 2026.
Case 7:25-cv-00051-LAG Document 42 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
No additional supplemental reports may be disclosed or provided after this date
without leave of Court.
3. 	Requests for admission that are propounded solely to authenticate documents as
provided for under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(1)(B) are excluded from
Local Rule 36’s limitation on the number of requests to admit that can be
propounded.
4. 	Fact discovery shall be completed by Friday, October 16, 2026. If a party believes
that more time for discovery is needed, an appropriate motion, accompanied by a
proposed order for the Court, may be filed setting forth good cause for an extension.
5. 	All dispositive motions must be filed no later than Tuesday, December 1, 2026.
6. 	Motions challenging the qualification(s) of any expert witness to offer opinion
testimony raised under Daubert or Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a), 702, or 703,
shall be filed no later than:
a. 	Tuesday, December 1, 2026, if related to a dispositive matter; or
b. 	Fourteen (14) days after notice of the pre-trial conference is entered, if
related to a nondispositive matter. If necessary, the motion will be heard at
the pre-trial conference.
7. 	Before moving for an order relating to discovery, such as motions to compel or
contested motions for protective orders, the movant must contact Marcia Alvarez
Benavidez, Courtroom Deputy, at Marcia_AlvarezBenavidez@gamd.uscourts.gov
to 	request 	a 	telephonic 	conference 	with 	the 	Court. 	See 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
16(b)(3)(B)(v). When contacting the Courtroom Deputy, the email should include a
concise statement of the issue(s) and a summary of each party’s position.
8. 	Should a party determine that there is a basis to file a motion to compel, a request
for a conference must be made by email to the Courtroom Deputy within
twenty-one (21) days of date on which the response(s) would be due under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of an
allegedly 	unresponsive/inadequate 	response/production, 	and 	not 	later 	than
twenty-one (21) days after the close of discovery, whichever occurs first.
Case 7:25-cv-00051-LAG Document 42 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
9. 	If any party requests a modification to the Scheduling and Discovery Order,
including a request for an extension of time for filing motions, pleadings, responses,
or other documents, beyond that granted by the Clerk or his deputy when permitted
without leave of Court, the party must do so by written motion no later than five (5)
days before the expiration of any extension granted by the Clerk or before the
expiration of the time period sought to be extended, whichever applies. This motion
shall state why an additional extension is needed. However, prior to requesting an
extension of any deadline set forth in the Scheduling and Discovery Order, counsel
for the parties shall confer regarding the proposed extension. The motion should
indicate whether the non-moving party consents or objects to the requested
modification. Despite any extension or modification that may be granted, the parties
are directed to act expeditiously in a good faith effort to complete discovery as
scheduled.
10. All evidence produced by a party in response to a discovery request made under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is deemed to be authenticated, and no other proof
of authentication for admission at trial is necessary unless the producing party
specifically 	notes in writing 	and 	contemporaneously with 	production of the
evidence to the requesting party the grounds for waiver of or objection to the
presumption of authentication. Initial discovery disclosures produced under Rule
26(a) of the Federal Rules will not be deemed authenticated unless designated in
response to a discovery request. Substantive objections are not waived by said
production.
Furthermore, the curative disclosures regarding the expert report by Plaintiff’s
expert satisfies the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 defect. (Docs. 37, 39). Accordingly, the Motion for
Extension of Time to Disclose Expert and Exclude (Doc. 37) is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of June, 2026.
/s/ Leslie A. Gardner
LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cv-00051-LAG Document 42 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 3