Evans v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 5

ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 10/21/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, proposed Scheduling Order due by 10/14/2013. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/16/13. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01732-WJM-BNB
JEFFREY R. EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge William J.
Martinez, pursuant to the Order of Reference dated July 3, 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 will hold a scheduling/planning conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b) on:
October 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.
The conference will be held in Courtroom A-401, Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. If this date is not convenient for any party1, that
party shall confer with opposing parties and contact my chambers to reschedule the conference
to a more convenient date. Please remember anyone entering the Alfred A. Arraj United
States Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2 B.

1

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 the instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form of
scheduling order can be downloaded from the court’s website at www.cod.uscourts.gov. (Click
on “Forms” in the blue box at the left side of the screen and scroll down under the Civil section
to the bold heading “Standardized Order Forms”). Parties shall prepare the proposed scheduling
order in accordance with the court’s form.
The parties shall submit their proposed scheduling order, pursuant to District of Colorado
Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures V.5.1, including a copy of the proposed scheduling
order in a WordPerfect or Word format sent via e-mailed to
[e-mail], all as required by ECF Procedure V.5.1. 5.12(A)(2) and
5.12(B)(1) and (2), on or before:
October 14, 2013
Attorneys and/or parties not participating in ECF shall submit their proposed scheduling order on
paper to the Clerk’s Office. However, if any party in the case is participating in ECF, it is the
responsibility of that party to submit the proposed scheduling order pursuant to the District of
Colorado ECF Procedures.
The plaintiff shall notify all parties who have not yet entered an appearance of the date and time
of the scheduling/planning conference and provide a copy of this Order to those parties.
(2) In preparation for the scheduling/planning conference, the parties are directed to
confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) on or before:
September 30, 2013
The court encourages the parties to meet face to face, but if that is not possible, the parties may
meet by telephone conference. All parties are jointly responsible for arranging and attending the
Rule 26(f) meeting.
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 Rule 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.

2

In those cases in which (i) the parties’ substantive allegations involve extensive
computer-generated 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, 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/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) on or before:
October 14, 2013
Counsel and parties are reminded that the 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 Local Rules of Practice for the District
of Colorado. Copies are available from the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, or through the District Court’s web site: www.cod.uscourts.gov. All
out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.3 prior to the scheduling/planning
conference.

3

DATED July 16, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

4