Dixon v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Filing 20

ORDER approving as outlined 19 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 4 Days. Case Track: Standard. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. Summary Judgment Motions due by 2/18/2014. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 9/30/2013. Mediation Follow Up on 4/30/2014. Deadline set for 7/15/2013 for Amended Complaint. Supplement to Discovery Plan due 7/31/13. (dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paul Dixon d/b/a 7-Eleven 32996B
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-181-JD

7-Eleven, Inc.
O R D E R
On July 3, 2013, a preliminary pretrial conference was held
in this case.

Attorney Stanley A. Martin appeared for

defendant, 7-Eleven, Inc.

Attorney Stephen W. Wight appeared

for plaintiff, Paul Dixon, who attended the conference.
At the conference, the court discussed the parties’
proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 19) and approved it, subject
to certain modifications detailed below.

Additionally, the

court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or
before July 13, 2013.
With respect to the discovery plan, the court adjusted
several of the proposed deadlines as reflected in the chart
below.

The parties concurred with respect to each of the

amendments.
Type of Trial

Bench

Trial Estimate (number of
days)

Four days

Track Assignment

Standard - 12 mos.

Joinder of Additional Parties

Plaintiff: July 31, 2013
Defendant: August 15, 2013

Mandatory Disclosures (Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1))

July 31, 2013

Third-Party Actions

August 15, 2013

Amendment of Pleadings

Plaintiff: August 31, 2013
Defendant: September 30, 2013

Demand

September 4, 2013

Offer

September 11, 2013

Electronic Disclosures

September 30, 2013

Motions to Dismiss

September 30, 2013

Completion of Discovery

November 30, 2013

Interrogatories
Requests for Admission
Depositions
Experts and Experts' Written
Reports


Supplementation under
Rule 26(a)

A maximum of 30 interrogatories
by each party to any other
party.
A maximum of 30 requests by each
party to any other party.
A maximum number of 4
depositions by each party.
Plaintiff: December 31, 2013
Defendant: January 31, 2014
Plaintiff: February 28, 2014
Defendant: March 28, 2014

Motions for Summary Judgment

February 18, 2014

Challenges to Expert
Testimony

March 31, 2014

Joint Statement re Mediation

April 30, 2014

Trial Date

June 17, 2014

With respect to electronic discovery, the court orders the
parties to file a supplement to the scheduling order because
their 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
2

forms in which it should be produced . . . .”

The parties’

proposed discovery plan includes the following statement:

“The

parties will discuss and attempt to agree on appropriate format
and scope of electronic information to be sought and/or
disclosed . . . .”

The parties conceded that more is required

under the rule.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and
file, on or before July 31, 2013, a joint motion to supplement
the discovery plan that outlines more specifically their
plans/agreements with respect to electronic discovery.

The

court refers the parties to the following outline of potential
issues to discuss:
A. Preservation. Counsel should attempt to agree on steps
the parties will take to segregate and preserve ESI in
order to avoid accusations of spoliation.
B. E-mail Information. Counsel should attempt to agree on
the scope of e-mail discovery and e-mail search
protocol.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. 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.
3

F. 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.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
July 3, 2013
cc: Stanley A. Martin, Esq.
Susan V. Metcalfe, Esq.
Stephen W. Wight, Esq.

4