Rhines v. Standley et al

Filing 9

AMENDED INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza. The Joint Status Report is due by 6/29/2017. A Telephonic Rule 16(c) Hearing is set for 7/6/2017 at 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza. [Pa rties shall call Judge Garza's Meet Me line at 505.348.2693 to be connected to the proceedings.] Unless otherwise notified by the Clerk or the Court a notice of consent or non-consent for this case to proceed before the trial Magistrate Judge should be submitted by each party no later than 6/26/2017. (atc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

J.R., a minor, by and through
Jennifer Rhines, her next friend
and mother, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CV No. 17-0431 SMV/CG

CHRIS STANDLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
AMENDED INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER1
This case is assigned to me for scheduling, case management, discovery, and all
other non-dispositive motions. Counsel are required to comply with the Local Civil Rules
of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, as well as the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Civility, professionalism, and cooperation are required of
counsel throughout this litigation.
Counsel and any pro se parties will "meet and confer" no later than June 22,
2016, to discuss: (1) the nature and bases of their claims and defenses; (2) the
possibility of a prompt resolution or settlement; (3) making or arranging for complete
initial disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(1); (4) preserving discoverable information;
and (5) the formulation of a provisional discovery plan. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1), (f). In
formulating a provisional discovery plan, counsel and pro se parties should meaningfully

1

Amended to change the time of the Rule 16(c) Scheduling Conference on July 6, 2017 from
2:30 p.m. to 11:30 a.m.

discuss: (i) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be
completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or limited to
particular issues; (ii) any issues about the disclosure, discovery, or preservation of
electronically stored information, including the form(s) in which it should be produced;
(iii) any issues about claims of privilege or confidentiality of materials, including
exploring whether the parties can agree on a procedure to assert these claims and
whether they will ask the Court to include any agreement in an order; (iv) whether any
changes should be sought to the limitations on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure or the Local Civil Rules; and (v) the facts and the law governing the
case to which the parties are willing to stipulate.
Pursuant to Rule 26(d)(2), the parties may deliver discovery requests under Rule
34 prior to the “meet and confer” date, however those requests are not considered to
have been served until the first “meet and confer” session.
Initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) must be made within fourteen (14) days
after the meet and confer session, unless a different time is set by stipulation or court
order.

The parties are advised to strictly follow the letter and spirit of Rule 26(a)(1) in

preparing their initial disclosures. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1). Initial disclosures are
intended to accelerate the exchange of core information about the case and eliminate
the need for formal discovery at the early stages of litigation. See 1993 Advisory
Committee Notes to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1). The parties must seek to meet these
objectives in making their initial disclosures, and should be prepared to explain how
they have fully complied with their obligations under Rule 26(a)(1) at the Rule 16

2

Scheduling Conference.
The parties will cooperate in preparing a Joint Status Report and Provisional
Discovery Plan (“JSR”) which follows the sample JSR form available on the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico’s website. All attorneys must show
their complete mailing address and telephone number(s) under the “Appearances”
section of the JSR. Do not indicate witnesses’ addresses as “in care of” an attorney’s
office. The city or town of residence of each witness must be included so that the trial
judge can consider that information in determining the trial location. The parties are to
fill in the blanks for proposed dates, bearing in mind that the time allowed for discovery
is generally 120 to 180 days from the date of the Rule 16 Initial Scheduling Conference.
The Court will determine actual case management deadlines after considering the
parties’ requests. Plaintiff, or Defendant in removed cases, is responsible for
electronically filing the JSR by June 29, 2017.
Parties may not modify case management deadlines on their own. Good cause
must be shown and the Court’s written approval obtained for any modification of the
case management deadlines that the Court establishes at the scheduling conference.
A Rule 16 Scheduling Conference will be conducted by telephone on July 6,
2017, at 11:30 a.m. Parties shall call Judge Garza’s Meet Me line at 505.348.2693 to
be connected to the proceedings. This line can only accommodate up to five telephone
lines, including the Court’s; if the parties anticipate that they will exceed this capacity,
they must contact the Court immediately so that alternative arrangements may be
made. Upon agreement, the parties may request that the Rule 16 Scheduling

3

Conference be held in person.
At the conference, counsel and any pro se parties must be prepared to discuss
all claims and defenses, initial disclosures, discovery requests and scheduling, issues
relating to the disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically-stored information,
the timing of expert disclosures and reports under Rule 26(a)(2), and the use of
scientific evidence and whether it is anticipated that a Daubert2 hearing will be needed.
We will also discuss settlement prospects and alternative dispute resolution
possibilities. Lead counsel and parties appearing pro se must participate unless
excused by the Court. Parties represented by counsel need not attend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

4