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 (877) 810-9415, 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)

Download PDF
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 (877) 810-9415, 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

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?