Hunter v. Salem, Missouri, City of et al
RULE 16 ORDER Joint Scheduling Plan due by 2/17/2012. Rule 16 Conference set for 2/23/2012 10:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker. Magistrate Consent due by 2/6/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 1/23/12. (Attachments: # 1 consent form)(CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CITY OF SALEM, et al,
Case No. 4:12CV0004 NAB
ORDER SETTING RULE 16 CONFERENCE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Consent: This case has been randomly assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge.
Unless previously submitted, no later than February 6, 2012, each party must submit to the
Clerk’s Office the consent/option form either consenting to the jurisdiction of a United States
Magistrate Judge or opting to have the case assigned to a United States District Judge.
1. Scheduling Conference: A Scheduling Conference pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 is set
for February 23, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. at the chambers of the undersigned. Thomas F.
Eagleton Courthouse Ninth Floor North. Any counsel may participate in the conference by
telephone, if counsel notifies the office of the undersigned of his or her intent to do so at least
twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the scheduled conference.
At the scheduling conference
counsel will be expected to discuss in detail all matters covered by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, as well as all
matters set forth in their joint proposed scheduling plan described in paragraph 3, and a firm and
realistic trial setting will be established at or shortly after the conference.
2. Meeting of Counsel: Prior to the date for submission of the joint proposed scheduling
plan set forth in paragraph 3 below, counsel for the parties shall meet to discuss the following:
the nature and basis of the parties’ claims and defenses,
the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case,
the formulation of a discovery plan,
any issues relating to preserving discoverable information,
any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information,
(i) the form or forms in which it should be produced,
(ii) the topics for such discovery and the time period for which such discovery
will be sought,
(iii) the various sources of such information within a party’s control that should
be searched for electronically stored information, and
(iv) whether the information is reasonably accessible to the party that has it, in
terms of the burden and cost of retrieving and reviewing the information,
any issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, including if the parties agree on a procedure to assert such claims after production - whether to ask the
Court to include their agreement in an order, and
other topics listed below or in Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and 26(f).
Counsel will be asked to report orally on the matters discussed at this meeting when they appear before
the undersigned for the scheduling conference, and will specifically be asked to report on the potential
for settlement; whether settlement demands or offers have been exchanged, without revealing the
content of any offers or demands; and, suitability for Alternative Dispute Resolution. This meeting is
expected to result in the parties reaching agreement on the form and content of a joint proposed
scheduling plan as described in paragraph 3 below.
Only one proposed scheduling plan may be submitted in any case, and it must be signed by
counsel for all parties. It will be the responsibility of counsel for the plaintiff to actually submit the joint
proposed scheduling plan to the Court. If the parties cannot agree as to any matter required to be
contained in the joint plan, the disagreement must be set out clearly in the joint proposal, and the Court
will resolve the dispute at or shortly after the scheduling conference.
3. Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan: No later than February 17, 2012, counsel shall file with
the Clerk of the Court a joint proposed scheduling plan. All dates required to be set forth in the plan
shall be within the ranges set forth below for the applicable track:
Track 1: Expedited
Track 2: Standard
Track 3: Complex
*Disposition w/i 12 mos of filing
*Disposition w/i 18 mos of filing
*Disposition w/i 24 mos of filing
*120 days for discovery
*180-240 days from R16 Conf. for
*240-360 days from R16 Conf
for discovery/dispositive motions
The parties’ joint proposed scheduling plan shall include:
whether the Track Assignment is appropriate; NOTE: This case has been assigned to
Track 2: ( Standard ).
dates for joinder of additional parties or amendment of pleadings;
a discovery plan including:
(i) any agreed-upon provisions for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored
(ii) any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as
trial-preparation material after production,
(iii) a date or dates by which the parties will disclose information and exchange
documents pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1),
(iv) whether discovery should be conducted in phases or limited to certain issues,
(v) dates by which each party shall disclose its expert witnesses’ identities and reports,
and dates by which each party shall make its expert witnesses available for deposition, giving
consideration to whether serial or simultaneous disclosure is appropriate in the case,
(vi) whether the presumptive limits of ten (10) depositions per side as set forth in
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A), and twenty-five (25) interrogatories per party as set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P.
33(a), should apply in this case, and if not, the reasons for the variance from the rules,
(vii) whether any physical or mental examinations of parties will be requested pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 35, and if so, by what date that request will be made and the date the examination will be
(viii) a date by which all discovery will be completed (see applicable track range,
Section 3. above);
(ix) any other matters pertinent to the completion of discovery in this case,
the parties’ positions concerning the referral of the action to mediation or early neutral
evaluation, and when such a referral would be most productive;
dates for filing any motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment (see applicable
track range, Section 3. above);
the earliest date by which this case should reasonably be expected to be ready for trial
(see applicable track range, Section 3. above);
an estimate of the length of time expected to try the case to verdict; and
any other matters counsel deem appropriate for inclusion in the Joint Scheduling Plan.
4. Disclosure of Corporate Interests: All non-governmental corporate parties are reminded to
comply with Disclosure of Corporate Interests by filing a Certificate of Interest with the Court pursuant
to E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.09.
5. Pro Se Parties: If any party appears in this action pro se, such party shall meet with all other
parties or counsel, participate in the preparation and filing of a joint proposed scheduling plan, and
appear for the scheduling conference, all in the same manner as otherwise required by this order.
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2012.
/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?