Workforce Housing, LLC v. Weatherford U.S., L.P.
Filing
18
ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/2017 at 10:00 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. By Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
Workforce Housing, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Weatherford U.S., L.P.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER FOR RULE 26(f) PLANNING
MEETING AND RULE 16(b)
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE,
AND ORDER RE RESOLUTION
OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Case No. 1:16-cv-397
IT IS ORDERED:
RULE 26(F) MEETING & RULE 16(B) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
The court shall hold a Rule 16(b) initial pretrial scheduling/discovery conference on
February 13, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. The scheduling conference will be held by telephone conference
call to be initiated by the court.
In preparation for the conference, counsel are directed to confer in accordance with Rule
26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall submit to the magistrate judge, no
later than two business days prior to the conference, a joint proposed scheduling/discovery plan
that reflects the Rule 26(f) discussions and includes at least those items listed in the form attached
to this order. It should either be mailed to P.O. Box 670, Bismarck, ND 58502-0760, or e-mailed
to ndd_J-Miller@ndd.uscourts.gov. Any disagreements among counsel shall be addressed at the
scheduling conference.
During the Rule 26(f) meeting, counsel shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and
defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, make or arrange for
the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and develop their joint proposed scheduling/discovery
Page 1 of 4
plan. These are only the minimum requirements for the meeting. Counsel are encouraged to have
a comprehensive discussion and are required to approach the meeting cooperatively and in good
faith. The discussion of claims and defenses shall be a substantive, meaningful discussion. In
addressing settlement or early resolution of the case, counsel are required to explore the feasibility
of ADR not only between themselves but with their clients as well. If the parties elect not to
participate in an early ADR effort, the court may nonetheless require a settlement conference shortly
before trial.
In addressing the Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, counsel shall discuss the appropriate timing,
form, scope or requirement of the initial disclosures, keeping in mind that Rule 26(a)(1)
contemplates the disclosures being made by the date of the Rule 16(b) initial scheduling conference
and including at least the four categories of information listed in the rule. Rule 26 affords the parties
flexibility in the scope, form and timing of disclosures under both Rule 26(a)(1) (initial disclosures)
and Rule 26(a)(2) (expert witness disclosures), but the parties’ agreement on disclosures is subject
to approval by the court. In their discussion of disclosures, counsel shall address issues of relevance
in detail, with each party identifying what it needs and why. The discussion shall include as well
the sequence and timing of follow-up discovery, including whether that discovery should be
conducted informally or formally and whether it should be conducted in phases to prepare for filing
of particular motions or for settlement discussions.
The deadlines in the scheduling/discovery plan shall be mutually agreeable, with a view to
achieving resolution of the case with a minimum of expense and delay. At the Rule 16(b)
conference, the court will review the plan with counsel. The date for the dispositive motion deadline
shall not be later than February 12, 2018, unless good cause is shown at the scheduling conference
Page 2 of 4
for a later date. Counsel are informed that the dispositive motion deadline is used in assigning the
trial date and the court must allow adequate time for briefing and ruling prior to the final pretrial
conference and trial dates.
RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
It is hereby ORDERED that the following steps be undertaken by all parties prior to the
filing of any discovery motions:
1)
The parties are strongly encouraged to informally resolve all discovery issues and
disputes without the necessity of Court intervention. In that regard, the parties are
first required to confer and fully comply with Rule 37(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16.1(B)(4) by undertaking a sincere, good faith
effort to try to resolve all differences without Court action or intervention;
2)
In the event that reasonable, good faith efforts have been made by all parties to
confer and attempt to resolve any differences, without success, the parties are then
required to schedule a telephonic conference with the Magistrate Judge in an effort
to try to resolve the discovery dispute prior to the filing of any motions. The parties
shall exhaust the first two steps of the process before any motions, briefs,
memorandums of law, exhibits, deposition transcripts, or any other discovery
materials are filed with the Court.
3)
If the dispute still cannot be resolved following a telephonic conference with the
Magistrate Judge, then the Court (Magistrate Judge) will entertain a motion to
compel discovery, motion for sanctions, motion for protective order, or other
discovery motions. In connection with the filing of any such motions, the moving
Page 3 of 4
party shall first fully comply with all requirements of Rule 37(a)(2) and Local Rule
16.1(B)(4) and shall submit the appropriate certifications to the Court as required by
those rules.
4)
The Court will refuse to hear any discovery motion unless the parties have made a
sincere, good fath effort to resolve the dispute and all of the above-identified steps
have been strictly complied with. A failure to fully comply with all of the
prerequisite steps may result in a denial of any motion with prejudice and may result
in an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2017.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 4 of 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?