York Investments, LLC et al v. Border Parts Group, Inc. et al

Filing 7

INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar. Joint Status Report is due by December 29, 2022. A telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference will be set by the successor Judge at a later date. 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 12/8/2022. (ama)

Download PDF
Case 2:22-cv-00659-KRS-SMV Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO YORK INVESTMENTS, LLC and TRICOM, INC., Plaintiffs, v. No. 22-cv-0659 KRS/SMV BORDER PARTS GROUP, INC. and KEITH BOYD, INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER This case is assigned to me for scheduling, case management, discovery, and all non-dispositive motions. Both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as well as the Local Rules of the Court apply to this lawsuit. Civility and professionalism are required of counsel. Counsel must read and comply with “A Lawyer’s Creed of Professionalism of the State Bar of New Mexico.” The parties, appearing through counsel or pro se, must “meet and confer” no later than December 15, 2022, to formulate a Provisional Discovery Plan. Fed R. Civ. P. 26(f). At the meet-and-confer session, the parties must 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 completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or limited to particular issues; (ii) the disclosure, Case 2:22-cv-00659-KRS-SMV Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 4 discovery, and preservation of electronically stored information, including the form(s) in which it should be produced; (iii) any 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 21 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. 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 1993 advisory committee’s notes. The parties must 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 initial scheduling conference. The parties will cooperate in preparing a Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan (“JSR”), using the JSR form (JSR-V3.doc) available at the Court’s web site. 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. Plaintiff (or Defendant in removed cases) is responsible for filing the JSR by December 29, 2022. 2 Case 2:22-cv-00659-KRS-SMV Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 4 The Court will determine actual case management deadlines after considering the parties’ requests. Parties may not modify case management deadlines on their own. Good cause must be shown and the Court’s express and written approval obtained for any modification of the dates in the Scheduling Order. A Rule 16 initial scheduling conference will be set by the successor Judge at a later date. At the conference, counsel and any pro se parties must be prepared to discuss their JSR; all claims and defenses; initial disclosures; discovery requests and scheduling; issues relating to the disclosure, discovery, and 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 Daubert1 hearing will be needed. We will also discuss settlement prospects, alternative dispute resolution possibilities, and consideration of consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Lead counsel and parties appearing pro se must participate unless excused by the Court. Parties represented by counsel need not attend. Pre-trial practice in this case shall be in accordance with the foregoing. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deadlines shall be as follows: Meet and Confer by: December 15, 2022 JSR filed by: December 29, 2022. Initial Disclosures due within 21 days of the meet-and-confer session, but in no event later than: January 5, 2023. Telephonic Rule 16 Initial Scheduling Conference: 1 See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590–92 (1993). 3 To be set by the successor Judge. Case 2:22-cv-00659-KRS-SMV Document 7 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 4 ______________________________ STEPHAN M. VIDMAR United States Magistrate Judge 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?