You're viewing Docket Item 11 from the case Boyd et al v. Sysco Corporation et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




4:13-cv-00599-RBH Date Filed 07/26/13 Entry Number 11 Page 1 of 2



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

FLORENCE DIVISION

Plaintiffs,

WAYNE BOYD AND WHITFIELD R.
BOYD,



v.

SYSCO CORPORATION, SYSCO
CORPORATION GROUP BENEFIT PLAN,
AND UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,



Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



Case Number: 4:13-cv-00599-RBH

AMENDED SPECIALIZED CASE

MANAGEMENT ORDER














This case appears to request entitlement to benefits pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. In light of the claim for relief as set
forth in the complaint (or the grounds for removal in Defendant’s Notice of Removal or the
defenses in Defendant*s Answer), the court orders as follows:

1.

2.

The parties, contemporaneously with requesting this Amended Specialized Case
Management Order, submitted their Amended and Supplemental Joint Certification

The parties have previously answered this Court’s specialized interrogatories.

The parties have agreed that the case is governed by ERISA.

that Mediation will occur on August 22, 2013.
The parties have stipulated
Representatives for the Defendants who are located out-of-state may attend by telephone,
with the mediator’s consent, but if appearing by telephone, must participate in the
mediation process as though they were attending live.

If the matter is not resolved by mediation, the parties shall, within twenty (20) days after
the mediation shall file any and all motions related to the record or plan.

If the matter is not resolved by mediation, and no motions related to the record or plan are
filed within the twenty (20) day period addressed in paragraph 5 above, the parties shall,
within sixty (60) days after the mediation addressed in Paragraph 4 above, file cross-
memoranda in support of judgment with respect to all benefits claims governed by
ERISA. The Joint Stipulation shall be filed at the same time. Each party shall have five
(5) days thereafter to file an optional reply. These memoranda should follow the form of

1


3.

4.


5.


6.



4:13-cv-00599-RBH Date Filed 07/26/13 Entry Number 11 Page 2 of 2

Local Rule 7.05. All references in memoranda shall be to the consecutively-numbered
page of the attachments to the Joint Stipulation. In its discretion, the court may order a
hearing. Unless so ordered, the court will decide the ERISA benefits issues upon the
record before it without a hearing. Motions for summary judgment need not be filed. Any
party objecting to the court disposing of the case on the Joint Stipulation must file an
objection with or prior to the filing of the joint certification required by Paragraph 2 of
this order.




7.

If the matter is not resolved by mediation, and motions related to the record or plan are
filed within the twenty (20) day period addressed in paragraph 5 above, the parties shall,
within sixty (60) days after the court’s ruling on said motion(s) contemplated in
paragraph 5 above, file cross-memoranda in support of judgment with respect to all
benefits claims governed by ERISA. The Joint Stipulation shall be filed at the same time.
Each party shall have five (5) days thereafter to file an optional reply. These memoranda
should follow the form of Local Rule 7.05. All references in memoranda shall be to the
consecutively-numbered page of the attachments to the Joint Stipulation. In its discretion,
the court may order a hearing. Unless so ordered, the court will decide the ERISA
benefits issues upon the record before it without a hearing. Motions for summary
judgment need not be filed. Any party objecting to the court disposing of the case on the
Joint Stipulation must file an objection with or prior to the filing of the joint certification
required by Paragraph 2 of this order.


The procedures set forth in this order are intended to supersede and replace the requirements
generally applicable under Rules 26(a), (d) and (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This
order supersedes any earlier entered scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. BRYAN HARWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: July 26, 2013
Florence, South Carolina



2