Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 12

ORDER approving with amendments 9 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 1-2 days. Case Track: Standard. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file, on or before June 1, 2013, a joint motion to supplement the discover y plan that outlines more specifically their plans/agreements with respect to electronic discovery. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. Ready for Trial on 2/4/2014. Summary Judgment Motions due by 10/1/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 7/22/2013. Discovery deadline 12/6/2013. Miscellaneous Deadline set for 6/1/2013.(kad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
N. Charles Johnson
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-088-LM

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.
O R D E R
On April 22, 2013, a preliminary pretrial conference
was held in this case.

Attorney Samuel J. Donlon appeared

for plaintiff; Attorney Jessica Suzanne Babine appeared for
defendants.

The court approves the Proposed Discovery Plan

(document no. 9) with amendments as reflected in the chart
below.

The parties concurred with respect to each of the

amendments.

The key deadlines in the discovery plan are

summarized in the chart below.
Scheduling Designation

Deadline

Complaint

Plaintiff shall file a
complaint in accordance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 on or
before June 1, 2013

Joinder of Additional Parties

June 1, 2013

Third-Party Actions

June 1, 2013

Amendment of Pleadings

June 1, 2013

Motions to Dismiss

July 22, 2013

Motions for Summary Judgment

October 1, 2013

Experts and Experts' Written
Reports

Plaintiff: October 7, 2013
Defendants: October 28, 2013

Completion of Discovery

December 6, 2013

Challenges to Expert Testimony

December 23, 2013

Trial Date

February 4, 2014

The parties’ statement regarding electronic discovery
is inadequate.

Rule 26(f)(3)(C) requires that a plan “must”

include the parties’ views on electronic discovery
“including the form or forms in which it should be produced
. . . .”

The parties’ proposed discovery plan includes

nothing about any agreement(s) with respect to electronic
discovery, stating instead that the parties “believe that
discovery in electronic form should be preserved and
produced in text searchable electronic form. They agree to
work together to preserve and exchange electronic discovery
via mutually agreeable modes and methods, at mutually
agreeable times.”

More is required under the rule.

As explained during the pretrial conference, the
parties are ordered to meet and confer and file, on or
before June 1, 2013, a joint motion to supplement the
discovery plan that outlines more specifically their
plans/agreements with respect to electronic discovery.
court refers the parties to the following outline of
potential issues to discuss:

The

1. Preservation. Counsel should attempt to agree on
steps the parties will take to segregate and
preserve ESI in order to avoid accusations of
spoliation.
2. E-mail Information. Counsel should attempt to agree
on the scope of e-mail discovery and e-mail search
protocol.
3. Back-up and Archival Data. Counsel should attempt to
agree on whether responsive back-up and archival
data exists, the extent to which back-up and
archival data is reasonably accessible, and who will
bear the cost of obtaining such data.
4. Format and Media. Counsel should attempt to agree on
the format and media to be used in the production of
ESI, and whether production of some or all ESI in
paper form is agreeable in lieu of production in
electronic format.
5. Reasonably Accessible Information and Costs. Counsel
should attempt to determine if any responsive ESI is
not reasonably accessible, i.e., is accessible only
by incurring undue burdens or costs.
6. Privileged or Trial Preparation Materials. Counsel
also should attempt to reach agreement regarding
what will happen in the event privileged or trial
preparation materials are inadvertently disclosed.
See Fed. R. Evid. 502.

__________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
April 22, 2013
cc:

Jessica Suzanne Babine, Esq.
John S. McNicholas, Esq.
Jeremy A. Miller, Esq.