Scribd
Upload
277 views

Docket Control Order

Docket Control Order requiring parties in Coryell County lawsuit to discuss disagreements and possible resolution of the case.

Uploaded by

Anonymous c0Qz0qD
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
277 views

Docket Control Order

Docket Control Order requiring parties in Coryell County lawsuit to discuss disagreements and possible resolution of the case.

Uploaded by

Anonymous c0Qz0qD
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
You are on page 1/ 4

Case 6:19-cv-00029-ADA-JCM Document 16 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION

JOHN FAIRCHILD and SUSIE §


FAIRCHILD, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§ CASE NO. 6:19-CV-00029-ADA-JCM
v. §
§
CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS, STEVEN §
RUSSELL LOVELADY, and WESLEY §
HARLAND PELFREY, §
§
Defendants. §

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER PURSUANT TO RULES 16(b) AND 26(f)

The Court shall hold a Rule 16(b) initial pretrial scheduling and discovery conference

on Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. The conference will be conducted by telephone

at phone number (877) 336-1828 and code 4740041 and will be attended by at least counsel

of record per party having appeared as of the date of this Order.

The parties are directed to confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)

and file with the Court, at least seven (7) days before the scheduled Rule 16(b) conference,

a joint proposed scheduling and discovery plan reflecting the Rule 26(f) criteria and

including the deadlines listed in the Court’s standard Scheduling Order. 1 The parties or their

counsel shall also e-mail the document in Word format to [email protected]

and [email protected] no later than two (2) business days before the

scheduled Rule 16(b) conference. The undersigned will address any disagreements between

the parties at the conference.

1
The Scheduling Order can be accessed online at the Court’s website: https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/judges-
information/standing-orders/

Page 1 of 4
Case 6:19-cv-00029-ADA-JCM Document 16 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 4

During the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties or their counsel shall discuss the nature

and basis of their claims and defenses, the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution

of the case, and the scope and type of discovery, including electronic discovery. The parties

shall also make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and develop their

joint proposed scheduling/discovery plan. These are the minimum requirements for

the meeting. The parties are also encouraged to have a comprehensive discussion and are

required to approach the meeting cooperatively and in good faith. The discussion of claims

and defenses shall be a substantive, meaningful discussion. In addressing settlement or early

resolution of the case, the parties are required to explore the feasibility of ADR between

themselves as well. If the parties elect not to participate in an early ADR effort, the Court

may nonetheless require a settlement conference shortly before trial.

In addressing the Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, the parties shall discuss the appropriate

timing, form, scope, or requirement of the initial disclosures, keeping in mind that

Rule 26(a)(1) contemplates the disclosures will be made by the date of the Rule 16(b) initial

scheduling conference and will include at least the categories of information listed in

the rule. Rule 26 affords the parties flexibility in the scope, form, and timing of disclosures

under both Rule 26(a)(1) (initial disclosures) and Rule 26(a)(2) (expert witness disclosures),

but the parties' agreement on disclosures is subject to approval by the undersigned. In their

discussion of disclosures, counsel shall address issues of relevance in detail, with each party

identifying what it needs and why. The discussion shall include the sequence and timing of

follow-up discovery, including whether that discovery should be conducted informally or

formally and whether it should be conducted in phases to prepare for settlement discussions

or filing of particular motions.

Page 2 of 4
Case 6:19-cv-00029-ADA-JCM Document 16 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 4

In addressing electronic discovery, the parties shall discuss what electronic sources

each party will search, difficulty of retrieval, preservation of records, the form of production

(electronic or hard-copy, format of production, inclusion of meta-data, etc.), cost of

production and which party will bear the cost, privilege/waiver issues, and any other

electronic discovery issues present in the case. Before engaging in the Rule 26 discussion,

the parties should determine who is most familiar with the client's computer system, what

electronic records the client maintains, how the client's electronic records are stored, the

difficulty/ease of retrieving various records, the existence and terms of the client's document

retention/destruction policy, and whether the client has placed a "litigation hold" preventing

destruction of potentially relevant records.

Further, any discovery disputes MUST be resolved in the following manner:

(1) The parties will confer and fully comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(a)(2) and Local Rule AT-4(e) by undertaking sincere and good-faith

efforts to resolve all differences without the undersigned’s action or intervention.

(2) If reasonable, good faith efforts are made by all parties to resolve the dispute(s)

without success, the parties will then schedule a telephonic conference with the

undersigned to resolve the disputes BEFORE filing any motion. Filing a motion

before exhaustion of these steps may result in summary denial of a compel motion.

(3) If the conference does not resolve the dispute, the Court will then entertain a motion

to compel, for sanctions, for protective order, or for other relief. The moving party

shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2) and Local Rule AT-4(e)

in preparing such motion and will submit the appropriate certifications to the Court.

Page 3 of 4
Case 6:19-cv-00029-ADA-JCM Document 16 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 4

(4) The Court may refuse to hear any discovery motion for noncompliance with any of

the above, including failure to make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.

The Court may also award costs and / or reasonable attorney’s fees for noncompliance

with the above steps.

SO ORDERED this 15th day of March, 2019.

THE HONORABLE JEFFREY C. MANSKE


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 4 of 4

You might also like