Jannusch v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft
ORDER setting a Scheduling Conference on 6/18/2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 5/3/13. (cbssec)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01043-PAB-CBS
HARRIS T. JANNUSCH,
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
a/k/a LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES,
JANE DOE, a person or persons whose true name is/are unknown, and
JOHN DOE, a person or persons whose true name is/are unknown,
ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING
The above captioned case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer by District Judge
Philip A. Brimmer, pursuant to the Order Referring Case (doc. #7) filed April 25, 2013. See 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a) and (b).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
(1) The court shall hold a FED.R.CIV.P. 16(b) scheduling and planning conference on
June 18, 2013, at
10:00 a.m. (Mountain Time)
The conference shall be held in Courtroom A-402, Fourth Floor, of the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse,
901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. If this date is not convenient for any party1, he or she shall confer with
opposing parties and contact the court to reschedule the conference to a more convenient time. Please
remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse will be
required to show valid photo identification. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B.
The term “party” as used in this Order means counsel for any party represented by a lawyer, and any pro
se party not represented by a lawyer.
A copy of instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be
downloaded from the “Forms” section on the Court’s website under the “Standardized Order Forms”
In accordance with D.C. COLO. ECF. PROC. 5.12, the parties shall file their proposed scheduling
order and also email an editable version to Shaffer_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov no later than:
Seven (7) days prior to the
(2) In preparation for the scheduling/planning conference, the parties are directed to confer in
accordance with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(f), no later than:
Twenty-one (21) days prior to the
The court strongly encourages the parties to meet face to face, but should that prove impossible, the parties
may meet by telephone conference. All parties are jointly responsible for arranging and attending the Rule
During the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and
defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, make or arrange for the
disclosures required by FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(1), and develop their proposed scheduling/discovery plan. The
parties should also discuss the possibility of informal discovery, such as conducting joint interviews with
potential witnesses, joint meetings with clients, depositions via telephone, or exchanging documents
outside of formal discovery.
In those cases in which: (i) the parties’ substantive allegations involve extensive computergenerated records; (ii) a substantial amount of disclosure or discovery will involve information or records
in electronic form (i.e., e-mail, word processing, databases); (iii) expert witnesses will develop testimony
based in large part on computer data and/or modeling; or (iv) any party plans to present a substantial
amount of evidence in digital form at trial, the parties shall confer regarding steps they can take to preserve
computer records and data, facilitate computer-based discovery and who will pay costs, resolve privilege
issues, limit discovery costs and delay, and avoid discovery disputes relating to electronic discovery. The
parties shall be prepared to discuss these issues, as appropriate, in the proposed Scheduling Order and at
the scheduling and planning conference.
These are the minimum requirements for the Rule 26(f) meeting. The parties are encouraged to
have a comprehensive discussion and are required to approach the meeting cooperatively and in good faith.
The parties are reminded that the purpose of the Rule 26(f) meeting is to expedite the disposition of the
action, discourage wasteful pretrial activities, and improve the quality of any eventual trial through more
thorough preparation. The discussion of claims and defenses shall be a substantive, meaningful discussion.
The parties are reminded that pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 26(d), no discovery shall be sought prior to
the Rule 26(f) meeting.
(3) The parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(1)
no later than:
Seven (7) days prior to the
Counsel and parties are reminded that mandatory disclosure requirements encompass computer-based
evidence which may be used to support claims or defenses. Mandatory disclosures must be supplemented
by the parties consistent with the requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 26(e). Mandatory disclosures and
supplementation are not to be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
(4) All parties are expected to be familiar with the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado Local Rules of Practice (D.C.COLOL.CIVR.). Copies are available through the District Court’s
web site: www.cod.uscourts.gov.
All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C.COLOL.CIVR. 83.3 prior to the
DATED at Denver, Colorado, on May 3, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?