Doe, XX v. Holy See (State of the Vatican City) et al

Filing 5

ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 1/26/2012 at 10:00 AM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Christine Noland. Status Report due by 1/12/2012.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 11/12/2011. (JRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN DOE, XX
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-651-JJB-CN
HOLY SEE (STATE OF THE
VATICAN CITY), ET AL

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that a scheduling conference is hereby set before United States
Magistrate Judge Christine Noland for JANUARY 26, 2012 at 10:00 A.M. in chambers.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Report shall be filed no later than
fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the scheduling conference. It shall be the duty of the
attorney for plaintiff(s) to provide the defendant(s) with a copy of this Order and attachment,
and to prepare, sign and file the Status Report in accordance with Attachment “A”.
No party may submit a separate Status Report without first obtaining leave of Court
for good cause shown. Mere disagreements among parties with respect to any of the matters
addressed in the report should be set forth in the appropriate section of the joint Status Report
The Court will review the report prepared and filed in accordance with Attachment
“A” in advance of the conference to determine whether or not the scheduling conference
should go forward as scheduled, be reset or be cancelled and a Scheduling Order issued
based upon the report. In the event there are no reported problems requiring Court
intervention and the parties have provided a timely report setting forth applicable deadlines,
the Court will notify the parties that the conference will not be held and that a Scheduling

Order based on their submitted deadlines will be forthcoming. Unless the Court issues an
Order cancelling the conference, the conference will be held as scheduled.
Signed in chambers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 12, 2011.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE NOLAND

Encs.

Attachment “A”
Consent Notice

ATTACHMENT “A”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN DOE, XX
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-651-JJB-CN
HOLY SEE (STATE OF THE
VATICAN CITY), ET AL

STATUS REPORT
A.

JURISDICTION:
What is the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court?

B.

BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE CASE:
1.
2.

C.

Plaintiff’s claims:
Defendant’s claims:

PENDING MOTIONS:
List any pending motion(s), the date filed and the basis of the motion(s):

D.

ISSUES:
List the principal legal issues involved and indicate whether or not any of those issues
are in dispute:

E.

DAMAGES:
Separately, for each party who claims damages or an offset, set forth the computation
of damages or the offset:
1.
2.

Defendant’s calculation of offset and/or plaintiff’s damages:

3.
F.

Plaintiff’s calculation of damages:

Counter claimant/cross claimant/third party’s calculation of damages:

SERVICE:
Identify any unresolved issues as to waiver or service of process, personal

jurisdiction, or venue:
G.

DISCOVERY:
1.

Have the initial disclosures required under FRCP 26(a)(1) been completed?

© ª YES
A.

© ª NO

Do any parties object to initial disclosures:

© ª YES

© ª NO

For any party who answered yes, please explain your reasons for objecting.
B.
2.

Please provide any stipulations reached by the parties with regard to
FRCP 26(a)(1) initial disclosures.

Briefly describe any discovery that has been completed or is in progress:
By plaintiff(s):
By defendant(s):

3.

Please describe any protective orders or other limitations on discovery that
may be required/sought during the course of discovery. (For example: are
there any confidential business records or medical records that will be sought?
Will information that is otherwise privileged be at issue?)

4.

Discovery from Experts:
Identify the subject matter(s) as to which expert testimony will be offered by:
Plaintiff(s):
Defendant(s):

H.

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER:
1.

Recommended deadlines for amending the complaint, or adding new parties,
claim, counter claims or cross claims:

2.

Recommended deadlines for completion of fact discovery:
A.
B.

3.

Exchanging initial disclosures required by FRCP 26(a)(1):
Filing all discovery motions and completing all discovery except
experts:

Disclosure of identities and resumes of expert witnesses (if appropriate, you
may suggest different dates for disclosure of experts in different subject
matters):

Plaintiff(s):
Defendant(s):
4.

Exchange of expert reports:
Plaintiff(s):
Defendant(s):

5.
6.

Filing dispositive motions:

7.

I.

Completion of discovery from experts:

If the general outline of proposed deadlines set forth in numbers 1-6 does not
fit the circumstances of your particular case, please provide a proposed joint
schedule of deadlines which is more appropriate for your case.

TRIAL:
1.

Has a demand for trial by jury been made?

© ª YES
2.
J.

© ª NO

Estimate the number of days that trial will require.

OTHER MATTERS:
Are there any specific problems the parties wish to address at the scheduling
conference?

© ª YES

© ª NO

1.

If the answer is yes, please explain.

2.

If the answer is no, do the parties want the Court to cancel the scheduling
conference and enter a Scheduling Order based on the deadlines set out in this
report?

© ª YES
K.

© ª NO

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (“ADR”):
1.

Several ADR techniques are available through the Court and may be
helpful in your case. These include early neutral evaluation, mediation,
and summary jury trial. Do the parties wish to engage in alternative
dispute resolution proceedings?

© ª YES
2.

L.

© ª NO

If the parties have been unable to agree on an ADR procedure, but one
or more parties believes that the case is appropriate for such a
procedure, identify the party or parties that recommend ADR and the
specific ADR process recommended:

SETTLEMENT:
1.

Please set forth what efforts, if any, the parties have made to settle this
case.

2.

Do the parties wish to have a settlement conference:

© ª YES

© ª NO

Is your answer is yes, at what stage of litigation would a settlement conference be
most beneficial?

M.

CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
You have the right to waive your right to proceed before a United States
District Judge and you may instead consent to proceed before a United States
Magistrate Judge.
Indicate whether, at this time, all parties will agree, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(c), to have a Magistrate Judge handle all the remaining pretrial aspects
of this case and preside over a jury or court trial, with appeal lying to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
All parties agree to jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge of this Court:

© ª YES

© ª NO

If your response is “yes,” all attorneys and unrepresented parties please sign the
attached Consent to Proceed Before A United States Magistrate Judge to indicate your
consent.

Report dated: ________________
Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) or Pro Se Plaintiff

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO DISPOSITION OF
CIVIL CASE BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c), you are hereby notified that
all of the parties in this civil case may consent to allow a United States Magistrate Judge of
this District Court to conduct any and all proceedings, including trial of the case and entry
of a final judgment.
You may consent by signing the form contained with the Status Report, or you may
use the attached form at any later stage of the proceedings should you decide at that time to
proceed before the United States Magistrate Judge. A copy of a consent form is enclosed and
is also available from the Clerk of Court. In the event all parties consent to proceed before
the Magistrate Judge, the signed consent form must be filed with the court, either
electronically or conventionally, but ONLY AFTER ALL PARTIES HAVE SIGNED THE
FORM.
You should be aware that your decision to consent, or not to consent, to the
disposition of your case before a United States Magistrate Judge is entirely voluntary and
should be communicated in writing to the Clerk of the District Court by signing the enclosed
form. Either the District Judge or the Magistrate Judge may again advise the parties of the
availability of the Magistrate Judge, but in doing so, shall also advise the parties that they are
free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.
Please note that the parties may appeal the Magistrate Judge’s decision directly to the
Court of Appeals in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of the District
Court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOHN DOE, XX
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-651-JJB-CN
HOLY SEE (STATE OF THE
VATICAN CITY), ET AL
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c), the parties to the above
captioned civil proceeding hereby waive their right to proceed before a United States District
Judge and consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further
proceedings in the case, including but not limited to the trial of the case, and order the entry
of judgment in the case.
The parties are aware that in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(3), any aggrieved
party may appeal from the judgment directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of the District Court.

DATE

PARTY
REPRESENTED

PRO SE OR ATTY.
NAME

PRO SE OR ATTY.
SIGNATURE