Gaskill et al v. Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County et al
INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt. Telephonic Rule 16(c) Hearing set for 6/20/2017 at 10:00 AM. Joint Status Report due by 6/13/2017. (jlr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOHN GASKILL, et al.,
Civ. No. 17-269 GBW/GJF
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DONA ANA COUNTY, et al.,
INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
The above-captioned cause has been assigned to this Court for scheduling, case
management, discovery and other non-dispositive motions.
The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, as well as the Local Rules of the Court will apply to this lawsuit.
The parties, appearing through counsel or pro se, will “meet and confer” no later than
June 6, 2017, to formulate a provisional discovery plan. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f). The time allowed
for discovery is generally 120 to 180 days. The parties will cooperate in preparing a “Joint
Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan” (“JSR”) which follows the sample JSR available
at the Court’s website. 1 The blanks for suggested/proposed dates are to be filled in by the
parties. Actual dates will be promulgated by order of the court shortly after entry of the JSR.
Plaintiff is responsible for filing the JSR by June 13, 2017.
Good cause must be shown and the Court’s express and written approval obtained for any
modification of the dates in the scheduling order that issue from the JSR.
Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be made within
fourteen (14) days of the meet-and-confer session.
Please visit the Court’s web site at www.nmcourt.fed.us to download the standardized “Joint Status Report and
Provisional Discovery Plan” form.
A Rule 16 scheduling conference will be conducted by telephone on June 20, 2017, at
Parties shall call Judge Fouratt’s “Meet Me” line 2 at (505) 348-2695 to be
connected to the proceedings.
At the Rule 16 scheduling conference, counsel will be prepared to discuss discovery
needs and scheduling, all claims and defenses, the use of scientific evidence and whether a
Daubert 3 hearing is needed, initial disclosures, and the time of expert disclosures and reports
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). We will also discuss settlement prospects and
alternative dispute resolution possibilities and consideration of consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). Client attendance is not required. If service on all parties is not complete, plaintiff(s)
appearing through counsel or pro se, is (are) responsible for notifying all parties of the content of
Pre-trial practice in this case shall be in accordance with the foregoing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
For the convenience of the parties, the Court will conduct many hearings and conferences by telephone. The
Court's teleconference line has a limited number of external connections. Therefore, by default, each side may use a
maximum of two telephone lines from which to call in. If unanimous, the parties may agree to a different division.
If a side wishes to have more people participate than they have available connections, they may have persons share
one telephone via a speakerphone or set up a separate teleconference that they then connect to the Court's line.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
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?