LVDG Series 125 established under LVDG, LLC, a Nevada series limited liability company v. Welles et al
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER - Case Management Conference set for 3/1/2018 at 10:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 2 before U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Counsel wishing to appear telephonically shall dial 1-877-873-8017, enter the access code 3416460, and enter the security code 3118 approximately 5 minutes prior to the hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 2/7/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
LVDG SERIES 125, established under
LVDG LLC, a Nevada series limited-liability )
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, et al.,
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
February 7, 2018
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KATIE LYNN OGDEN
REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Local Rule (“LR”)16-2, the Court believes that a Rule 16
case management conference in this matter will assist the parties, counsel and the Court. Therefore,
a case management conference is set for Thursday, March 1, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Reno
Courtroom 2 before United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Counsel wishing to appear
telephonically shall dial 1-877-873-8017, enter the access code 3416460, and enter the security code
3118 approximately five (5) minutes prior to the hearing.
In preparation for this case management conference, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Case Management Report
The parties shall jointly file the case management report with the Clerk of the Court not less
than seven (7) court days before the case management conference. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to
initiate and prepare the joint case management report, and it is Defendants’ responsibility to assist in
preparation of the case management report. If the parties cannot agree on the subject matters of the case
management report, a statement of each party’s position on the disputed topic shall be provided;
separate reports shall not be filed.
The proposed case management report shall address the following information in separately
A short statement of the nature of the case (three pages or less), including a description
of each claim or defense;
A description of the principal factual and legal disputes in the case;
The jurisdictional basis for the case, citing specific jurisdictional statutes;1
Identification of any parties who have not been served and an explanation why they have
not been served; and any parties which have been served but have not answered or
A statement whether any party expects to add additional parties to the case or otherwise
amend the pleadings (the Court will set a deadline to join parties or amend pleadings at
the case management conference);
Whether there are any pending motions that may affect the parties’ abilities to comply
with a case management order, including a brief description of those motions;
A list of contemplated motions, if any, and an overview statement of issues to be
presented by any such motions;
The status of related cases, if any, pending before other judges of this Court or before
other courts in any other jurisdiction;
Any further supplemental discussion of necessary discovery, including:
a. the extent, nature and location of discovery anticipated by the parties;
b. suggested revisions, if any, to the discovery limitations imposed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and LR 26-1(b); and,
If jurisdiction is based on diversity, the basis shall include a statement of the citizenship of
every party and the amount in controversy. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are reminded that (1)
a corporation is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of
business and (2) partnerships, limited liability companies and real estate investment trusts are citizens
of every state in which one of their members or partners resides. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Indus.
Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990); Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign
Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003); Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc.,
136 S.Ct. 1012, 2016 WL 854159 (Mar. 7, 2016).
c. the number of hours permitted for each deposition, unless extended by the
A discussion of any issues relating to the disclosure or discovery of electronically stored
information (“ESI”), including the form or forms in which it should be produced (see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(iii); 26(f)(3)(C); and 33(d));
A discussion of any issues related to any anticipated possible claims of privilege or work
product (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(iv) and 26(f)(3)(D));
Unless the discovery plan and scheduling order otherwise provides and the Court so
orders, the parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) disclosures and any objections thereto;
Unless the Court has already approved a discovery plan and scheduling order, the
proposed dates for each of the following:
a. a deadline for the completion of discovery (LR 26-1(b)(1));
b. a deadline for amending the pleadings and adding parties (LR 26-1(b)(2));
c. dates for complete disclosure of expert testimony Fed. R. Civ. P 26(a)(2)(A)-(C);
d. a deadline for the filing of dispositive motions (LR 26-1(b)(4)); and,
e. a date by which the parties will file the joint pretrial order (LR 26-1(b)(5)).
The parties shall state whether the dates proposed in ¶ 13 (a)-(e) are within the deadlines
specified in LR 26-1(b). If so, then the parties’ report shall state, “THE DEADLINES
SUBMITTED HEREIN ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(b).” If longer
deadlines are sought, the parties’ report shall state “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW
REQUESTED.” If the parties request special scheduling review of the LR 26-1(b)
deadlines, the parties shall include a statement of the reasons why longer or different
time periods should apply to the case. If the parties disagree as to the LR 26-1(b)
deadlines, a statement of each party’s position on each point of dispute should be
The parties must certify that they met and conferred about the possibility of using
alternative dispute-resolution processes including mediation, arbitration, and if
applicable, early neutral evaluation. (LR 26-1(b)(7)).
The parties must certify that they considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge under
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and the use of the Short Trial Program
(General Order 2013-01). (LR 26-1(b)(8)).
Whether a jury trial has been requested and whether the request for a jury trial is
contested (if the request is contested, set forth reasons);
The estimated length of trial and any suggestions for shortening and/or expediting the
The prospects for settlement, including any request of the Court for assistance in
settlement efforts; and,
Any other matters that will aid the Court and parties in resolving this case in a just,
speedy, and inexpensive manner as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 and LR 1. Counsel for
all parties are expected to comply fully with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
this Court’s Local Rules to minimize the expense of discovery.
Case Management Conference and Order
The Court directs counsel to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the objectives
of the case management conference. Counsel who appear at the case management conference shall
have authority to enter into stipulations regarding all matters that may be discussed.
Interim Status Report
Not later than sixty (60) days before the discovery cut-off, the parties shall submit an interim
status report which complies with LR 26-3 and provides the Court with any updated information with
respect to the matters addressed in their case management report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK
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?