AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.

Filing 30

SCHEDULING ORDER. The parties are directed to read this Order in its entirety upon receipt. The Court will hold a status hearing in this case on April 30, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 31, 2013. (lcegs2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING
AND MATERIALS, et al.,
Plaintiffs/
Counter-Defendants,
v.
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.,
Defendant/
Counter-Plaintiff.

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

Civil Action No. 13-1215 (EGS)

SCHEDULING ORDER
Attorneys of record shall read this Scheduling Order in its
entirety upon receipt and are responsible for ensuring that
members of the attorney’s staff are also familiar with and follow
these procedures and the Local Civil Rules. The failure of a
party or attorney to comply with the provisions of this Order or
the Local Civil Rules will be viewed with disfavor and may result
in the imposition of sanctions. The parties are advised that
requests for extensions of time will also be viewed with disfavor
and will not be granted as a matter of course. Furthermore, in
view of this Court’s limited resources, no one should contact
chambers by telephone absent exigent circumstances.

Pursuant to the joint report filed according to Local Civil
Rule 16.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
(1) Initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be made by no later than January 17,
2014. Any amendments to the pleadings, including the joining of
parties, shall be made by no later than March 14, 2014. Fact
discovery shall be completed by no later than October 3, 2014.
Opening expert disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2) on issues for which the disclosing party bears
the burden of proof shall be made by no later than December 2,
2014. Any rebuttal expert disclosures or opening expert
disclosures on issues for which the disclosing party does not
bear the burden of proof shall be made by no later than January
16, 2015. Any rebuttal expert disclosures or replies to rebuttal
disclosures on issues for which the disclosing party bears the
burden of proof shall be made by no later than March 2, 2015. Any
reply expert disclosures on issues for which the disclosing party
does not bear the burden of proof shall be made by no later than
March 16, 2015. Expert discovery shall be completed by no later
than April 16, 2015. These dates are firm. Accordingly, the
parties are directed to ensure that all discovery requests are
served in sufficient time to allow a response consistent with the
timing set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

Local Civil Rules unless otherwise stipulated by the parties. All
other discovery procedures agreed to by the parties in their
joint report are incorporated by reference herein.
(2) If, at any point in time, the parties desire to have a
mediator from the District Court’s mediation program appointed to
assist with settlement discussions, the parties shall file a
motion captioned “Joint Motion for Appointment of a Mediator.”
(3) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel shall confer
in good faith in an effort to resolve any discovery disputes
before bringing the disputes to the Court. See Local Civ. R. 7(m)
(“Before filing any nondispositive motion in a civil action,
counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing
counsel, either in person or by telephone, in a good faith effort
to determine whether there is any opposition to the relief sought
and, if there is opposition, to narrow the areas of disagreement.
The duty to confer also applies to non-incarcerated parties
appearing pro se. A party shall include in its motion a statement
that the required discussion occurred, and a statement as to
whether the motion is opposed.”).
(4) Any motion that does not comply with Local Civil
Rule 7(m) may be, sua sponte, denied by the Court.
(5) Counsel are hereby notified that the party that does not
prevail in a discovery dispute shall be ordered to pay the costs
involved, including reasonable attorney’s fees, absent a
determination by the Court that such an award would be unjust.

(6) The parties are directed to file a joint status report
discussing the progress of discovery and the prospects for
settlement by no later than November 3, 2014. In this status
report, the parties shall inform the Court whether they consent
to the appointment of a mediator from the District Court’s
mediation program to assist with settlement discussions.
(7) There will be a status conference in the courtroom of
Judge Sullivan on April 30, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. The parties shall
file a status report, including a joint recommendation for
further proceedings, by no later than April 23, 2015. In the
event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation,
each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time.
Counsel with primary case responsibility shall appear at this
status hearing and at all other hearings scheduled by the Court.
(8) In view of this Court’s limited resources, no one should
contact chambers by telephone absent exigent circumstances. In
the event, however, that it is absolutely necessary to
communicate with Judge Sullivan’s staff regarding this case,
chambers may be contacted at 202-354-3260, or the courtroom
deputy, Mark Coates, may be contacted at 202-354-3364. The
parties are directed not to call chambers without opposing
counsel on the line. Failure to comply with this provision will
be viewed with extreme disfavor by the Court.
(9) All dates in this Order are firm and may not be altered
by the parties without seeking leave of the Court. Any request

for an extension of time shall be made by filing a motion and
shall state whether any prior extensions of time have been
granted and whether the extension will impact any other scheduled
dates. A motion for extension of time that is filed on the date
that a filing is due will be viewed with extreme disfavor.
(10) Counsel are instructed to read the D.C. Circuit’s
opinion in Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
Dunner, et al., 101 F.3d 145, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“In
implementing a scheduling order at the beginning of a case and
insisting on its reasonable observance during litigation, the
district court acted in a manner consistent with the Supreme
Court’s and Congress’ concern for the fair and efficient
administration of justice.”).
SO ORDERED.
Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
December 31, 2013