U.S. Bank National Association v. Ribeiro

Filing 26

ORDER that counsel shall meet and confer no later than Tuesday, February 14, 2012, and shall submit their joint proposal regarding ESI protocol to the court no later than Friday, February 17, 2012, by 4:00 p.m. If counsel cannot agree on a proposal, they shall submit a joint status report stating their respective proposals and positions with enough specificity to enable the court to decide the matter without further briefing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/6/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHNNY A. RIBEIRO, JR.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01534-JCM-PAL
ORDER

11
12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Status Report (Dkt. #24) and Defendant’s Status

13

Report (Dkt. #25), both filed February 2, 2012. On January 19, 2012, the court held a status conference

14

concerning discovery. See Minute Order (Dkt. #22). The court entered a standard Discovery Plan and

15

Scheduling Order (Dkt. #23) and directed counsel to meet and confer regarding the exchange of

16

electronically stored information (“ESI”).

17

Plaintiff’s Status Report represents that Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to meet and confer

18

with defense counsel in compliance with the court’s Order (Dkt. #22) but has been unsuccessful.

19

Plaintiff sent a letter to opposing counsel on January 30, 2012, along with Plaintiff’s proposed ESI

20

protocol, to schedule the Rule 26(f) conference. Although defense counsel scheduled a telephonic

21

conference for 4:00 p.m. that same day, he did not attend. As of February 2, 2012, defense counsel had

22

not responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to meet and confer or schedule the Rule 26(f) conference.

23

Defendant’s Status Report states that counsel was in the midst of preparing for a week-long trial

24

beginning on January 31, 2012, when he spoke to Plaintiff’s counsel. He asserts that he will endeavor

25

to speak with Plaintiff’s counsel within the next several days. Counsel also notes that Plaintiff’s

26

proposal is not feasible because his firm is not equipped with the requisite hardware and software, and

27

purchasing it for this case would be cost prohibitive. He has not proposed an althernative.

28

Having reviewed and considered the matter,

1

IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall meet and confer no later than Tuesday, February 14,

2

2012, and shall submit their joint proposal regarding ESI protocol to the court no later than Friday,

3

February 17, 2012, by 4:00 p.m. If counsel cannot agree on a proposal, they shall submit a joint

4

status report stating their respective proposals and positions with enough specificity to enable the court

5

to decide the matter without further briefing.

6

Dated this 7th day of February, 2012.

7
8
9

________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2