Llano County library lawsuit schedule stretches over a year
Court procedures could take up to or more than a year in the case of a civil lawsuit filed against Llano County regarding actions taken in its library system. On July 18, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, issued an agreed scheduling order for Little et al v. Llano County et al.
The civil case against Llano County concerns the removal of certain books from its library system and a change in e-book services.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman issued the scheduling order, which lists dates for disclosures, possible settlement agreements, discovery, or summary judgment from Aug. 5 of this year to July 21, 2023.
Judges regularly issue scheduling orders in lawsuits to establish firm deadlines for completion of certain tasks by each side. The orders keep the process moving and help alleviate attempts by one side or the other to either slow down or speed up proceedings.
Deadlines in the Llano County civil suit include:
- Aug. 5 — completing and filing “Notice concerning reference to United States Magistrate Judge”
- Aug. 22 — exchange initial disclosures
- Sept. 22 — assert claims for relief by submitting a written offer of settlement to opposing parties
- Sept. 23 — file report on alternative dispute resolution in compliance with Local Rule CV-88
- Sept. 29 — opposing parties respond, in writing, to offer of settlement
- Nov. 18 — parties file all motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join additional parties
- March 31, 2023 — parties complete all fact discovery
- May 19, 2023 — parties complete all expert discovery
- June 9, 2023 — defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed
- June 23, 2023 — plaintiffs’ response and cross-motion for summary judgment filed
- July 7 — defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgement and reply in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment
- July 21, 2023 — plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of the cross-motion filed
All parties have the right to move for a stay of proceedings.
“The Court will set this case for final pretrial conference at a later time,” Judge Pitman wrote in the order.