Martinez v. Baros et al

Filing 19

INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza. Joint Status Report is due by 10/13/2021. A Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is set for 10/20/2021 at 10:00 AM before Chief Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza. [Parties shall c all Judge Garza's AT&T Teleconference line at [phone], follow the prompts, and enter access code 7467959, 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 9/16/2021. (crc)

Case 2:21-cv-00633-MV-CG Document 19 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MANUEL MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CV 21-633 MV/CG

REY BAROS, et al.,
Defendants.
INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Reply”), (Doc. 17), filed September 7,
2021; and the Court’s prior Order Delaying Discovery Schedule (the “Order”), (Doc. 8),
filed August 5, 2021. In the Order, the Court found good cause to delay conducting a
scheduling conference and entering a scheduling order pending resolution of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. 6). Id. In their Reply,
Defendants inform the Court that they “withdraw their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint based on the fact that an Amended Complaint has been filed.” (Doc. 17 at 1).
As a result, the parties are now instructed to prepare for discovery.
Counsel and any pro se parties will “meet and confer” no later than October 6,
2021, 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
discuss: (i) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be

Case 2:21-cv-00633-MV-CG Document 19 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 4

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 of
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 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

2

Case 2:21-cv-00633-MV-CG Document 19 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 4

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 October 13, 2021.
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
Wednesday, October 20, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. Parties shall call Judge Garza’s AT&T
Teleconference line at [phone], follow the prompts, and enter the Access Code
7467959, to be connected to the proceedings. Upon agreement, the parties may
request that the Rule 16 Scheduling 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

3

Case 2:21-cv-00633-MV-CG Document 19 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 4

scientific evidence and whether it is anticipated that a Daubert1 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
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

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

4