NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS v. REED ELSEVIER, INC. et al

Filing 12

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS v. REED ELSEVIER, INC. et al

Doc. 12

Case 1:06-cv-00990-HHK

Document 12

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Plaintiff, v. REED ELSEVIER, INC. and REED ELSEVIER GROUP, PLC Defendant. ORDER FOR INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE The above-captioned case has been assigned to the undersigned for resolution. The initial scheduling conference will be conducted on August 7, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.,Courtroom 27A, 6th floor. Counsel who attend must be sufficiently familiar with the case to answer any questions which arise; parties are welcome and are encouraged to attend. Pursuant to LcvR 16.3(a) of the Local Rules and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and 26(f)(1), counsel shall submit their joint statement addressing all topics listed in LcvR 16.3(c) no later than 14 days following their meeting. Counsel are also directed to either include in their joint statement or in a supplemental pleading to be filed no later than 72 hours prior to the initial scheduling conference, a brief statement of the case and the statutory basis for all causes of action and defenses. Counsel are required to comply with Local Civil Rule 16.3 and, in particular, Rule 16.3(c), as amended August 15, 1995, and attached hereto as Appendix II. In considering what form of alternative dispute resolution the parties think the case is most suited for, counsel are reminded that among their options are mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, summary jury trial, or any other form of alternative dispute resolution which can be tailored to the needs of their case. Civil Action 06-00990 (HHK)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-00990-HHK

Document 12

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

Extensions or enlargements of time will not be granted at any time solely upon stipulation by the parties. Any requests for a continuance or other scheduling change must include alternative dates that have been agreed to by all the parties. Requests that do not include an alternative date acceptable to all the parties will be denied. Parties are to communicate with the court by motion, opposition, reply, and not by letter. Inquiries concerning the status of any pending matter shall be directed to the courtroom deputy, Robert West [phone], or if he is unavailable, to the staff person in the Clerk's Office designated as his substitute. Chambers will not answer questions regarding any pending matters before Judge Kennedy. In an emergency, however, chambers can be reached at [phone].

2

Case 1:06-cv-00990-HHK

Document 12

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

APPENDIX I (Case Tracking Schedules) The following are the presumptive schedules the court shall follow. Variations may be appropriate in light of individual case differences. All timeframes are calculated from the date of the initial scheduling conference unless otherwise indicated. Track One (Fast) Exchange witness lists Deadline for PostR. 26(a) discovery requests Proponent's R. 26 (a) (2) statements Opponent's R. 26 (a)(2) statements All discovery closed 15 days Track Two (Standard) 30 days Track Three (Complex) 60 days

30 days

45 days

90 days

N/A

60 days

120 days

N/A

90 days

150 days

60 days

120 days

180 days

3

Case 1:06-cv-00990-HHK

Document 12

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 4 of 4

A P P E N D I X II ( L o c a l Civil Rule 16.3 - Duty to Meet and Confer) ( c ) M a t te r s to be discussed by the parties. A t the meeting required by this Rule, the parties shall discuss the following matters: *** ( 5 ) W h e t h e r the case could benefit from the court's Alternative D i s p u t e Resolution (ADR) procedures (or some other form of A D R ) ; what related steps should be taken to facilitate such ADR; a n d whether counsel have discussed ADR and their response to th is provision with their clients. In assessing the above, counsel s h a ll consider: ( i) the client's goals in bringing or defending th e litigation; ( ii) whether settlement talks have already o c c u r r e d and, if so, why they did not produce a n agreement; ( iii) the point during the litigation when ADR w o u ld be most appropriate, with special c o n s id e ra tio n given to: ( a a ) whether ADR should ta k e place after the informal e x c h a n g e or production th r o u gh d isco very o f specific items of in fo r m a tio n ; and ( b b ) whether ADR should ta k e place before or after th e judicial resolution of k e y legal issues; ( i v ) whether the parties would benefit from a n e u t r a l evaluation of their case, which could in c lu d e suggestions regarding the focus of d i s c o v e r y , the legal merits of the claim, an a s s e s s m e n t of damages and/or the potential s e ttle m e n t value of the case; and ( V ) whether cost savings or any other practical a d v a n ta g e would flow from a stay of d is c o v e r y or of other pretrial proceedings w h i le an ADR process is pending.

4