FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al v. AEREOKILLER LLC, et al

Filing 23

ORDER setting Initial Scheduling Conference for September 3, 2013, at 9:45 a.m. The parties are directed to meet and confer as outlined herein. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 7/17/2013. (lcrmc2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FOX TELEVISION STATIONS,
INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

AEREOKILLER LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-758 (RMC)

ORDER FOR INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
The above-captioned case has been assigned to this Judge for resolution. The
Initial Scheduling Conference is set for September 3, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. Counsel who attend
must be sufficiently familiar with the case to answer any questions that arise; parties are
welcome and are encouraged to attend.
Counsel shall confer at least 21 days prior to the above date and submit their
Report addressing all topics listed in Local Rule 16.3(c) no later than 14 days following their
meeting. Counsel are also directed to either include in their Report, 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 Rule 16.3, attached hereto as
Appendix I. In considering the case’s suitability for the various forms of alternative dispute
resolution, counsel are reminded that among their options are mediation, arbitration, early neutral
evaluation, summary jury trial, or any other form of alternative dispute resolution that can be
tailored to the needs of their case.

Extensions or enlargements of time will only be granted upon motion, showing
good cause, and not upon stipulation by the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); LCvR 16.4.
Motions for a continuance or other scheduling change must be filed three business days prior to
the hearing and must include alternative dates that have been agreed upon by all parties.
Requests that do not include an alternative date acceptable to all parties will be denied.
The Court reminds both parties’ counsel that they are expected to conduct
themselves in a civil, polite, and professional manner at all times, particularly during discovery.
Counsel are referred to LCvR 26.2 and expected to conform fully with its directives. Moreover,
counsel are required, under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LCvR 7.1(m), to confer in good faith
in an effort to resolve disputes before bringing them to the Court’s attention. In the event that
counsel are unable to resolve a dispute, counsel shall contact chambers to arrange for a telephone
conference with the Court. Counsel shall not file motions regarding such disputes without a
prior telephone conference with the Court and opposing counsel.
Parties are to communicate with the Court by motion, opposition, and reply – not
by letter. Inquiries concerning the status of any pending matter shall be directed to the
Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Chashawn White, preferably by email (chashawn_white@
dcd.uscourts.gov or 202/354-3176) or, if she is unavailable, to the staff person in the Clerk's
Office designated as her substitute, and not to Chambers. Chambers personnel will not handle
questions relating to the status or scheduling of pending matters.
In an emergency, however, Chambers can be reached at 202/354-3560.

Date: July 17, 2013

/s/
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER
United States District Judge

APPENDIX I
Rule 16.3
DUTY TO CONFER
(c)

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED BY THE PARTIES

At the conference required by this Rule, the parties must confer to discuss the following
matters:
*
(5)

*

*

Whether the case could benefit from the Court’s alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) procedures (or some other form of ADR); what related steps should be
taken to facilitate such ADR; and whether counsel have discussed ADR and their
responses to this provision with their clients. In assessing the above, counsel shall
consider:
(i)

the client’s goals in bringing or defending the
litigation;

(ii)

whether settlement talks have already occurred and,
if so, why they did not produce an agreement;

(iii)

the point during the litigation when ADR would be
most appropriate, with special consideration given
to:
(aa)

whether ADR should take place after
the informal exchange or production
through discovery of specific items
of information; and

(bb)

whether ADR should take place
before or after the judicial resolution
of key legal issues;

(iv)

whether the parties would benefit from a neutral
evaluation of their case, which could include
suggestions regarding the focus of discovery, the
legal merits of the claim, an assessment of damages
and/or the potential settlement value of the case;
and

(v)

whether cost savings or any other practical
advantage would flow from a stay of discovery or
of other pre-trial proceedings while an ADR process
is pending.