Kuntz v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loans

Filing 11

ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 4/10/2017 at 11:30 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. By Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Sample Scheduling/Discovery Plan)(BG) Distributed on 3/10/2017 (cjs).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Riley S. Kuntz, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER FOR RULE 16(b) vs. ) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, ) AND ORDER RE RESOLUTION ) OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES Texas Guaranteed Student Loans, ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-032 Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ IT IS ORDERED: RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE The court shall hold a Rule 16(b) initial pretrial scheduling/discovery conference on April 10, 2017, at 11:30 AM CDT. The court shall initiate the conference call. The court will work with the parties at the scheduling conference to establish pretrial deadlines and formulate a scheduling and discovery plan. Attached is a sample scheduling and discovery plan for the parties’ reference. 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)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37.1 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 1 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 party shall first fully comply with all requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37.1 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 faith 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 10th day of March, 2017. /s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr. Charles S. Miller, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?