Davis v. Negaard et al
ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 12/13/2023 at 9:00 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Clare R. Hochhalter. By Magistrate Judge Clare R. Hochhalter (BG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Holly Negaard; Holly Negaard, as Trustee )
of the Holly Negaard Revocable Living
Trust; Jessica Purdy a/k/a Jessica Shanafelt; )
and Purdy Investments, LLC d/b/a Western )
ORDER FOR RULE 26(f) PLANNING
MEEETING AND FOR RULE 16(b)
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, AND
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
Case No. 1:23-cv-195
IT IS ORDERED:
Rule 26(f) Meeting and Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference
The court will hold a Rule 16(b) initial pretrial scheduling/discovery conference on
December 13, 2023, at 9:00 AM CDT. The scheduling conference will be held by telephone. To
participate in the conference, the parties shall call (877) 810-9415 and enter access code 8992581.
Parties are advised that telephone conferences may be electronically recorded for the convenience
of the Court.
Counsel may use the court’s sample Scheduling/Discovery plan, available at
www.ndd.uscourts.gov/forms. If the court’s sample form is used, please use the form as revised
in August 2022.
Counsel must confer in person or by telephone prior to the telephone conference. As
required by Rule 26(f)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, during their conference, counsel
Discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for
promptly settling or resolving the case.
Make, or arrange to make, the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A).
Discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information, including
electronically stored information. In discussing discovery of electronically stored
information, counsel shall discuss what electronic sources each party will search,
difficulty of retrieval, preservation of records, the form of production (electronic or
hard-copy, format of production, inclusion of metadata, etc.), cost of production
and which party will bear the cost, privilege/waiver issues, and any other electronic
discovery issues. Prior to counsel’s Rule 26(f)(2) conference, counsel should
determine who is most familiar with the client’s computer system, what electronic
records the client maintains, how the client’ s electronic records are stored, the
difficulty/ease of retrieving various records, the existence and terms of the client’s
document retention/destruction policy, and whether the client has placed a
“litigation hold” to prevent destruction of potentially relevant records.
Discuss any need for a protective order and the provisions of any desired protective
Discuss alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods and whether to request a
court-hosted settlement conference/mediation. Counsel are required to discuss the
feasibility of ADR not only between themselves but also with their respective
Whether the parties will consent to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.
With a view toward securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the
matter, develop a proposed discovery plan which meets the requirements of Rule
No later than two business days prior to the conference, counsel shall submit their joint
proposed scheduling/discovery plan, electronically signed and dated by counsel for all parties, in
WordPerfect or Word format, to the magistrate judge at ndd_J-Hochhalter@ndd.uscourts.gov.
The plan shall reflect the Rule 26(f)(2) discussions and shall include, at minimum, proposed
deadlines for each of the following:
Filing any motions to join other parties;
Filing any motions to amend the pleadings;
Filing any other anticipated nondispositive motions;
Completion of fact discovery;
Disclosure of experts and their opinions;
Completion of expert discovery; and
Filing any dispositive motions, with a deadline no later than September 12, 2024,
unless good cause for a later date is established at the scheduling conference.1
Any disagreements among counsel as to deadlines will be discussed at the scheduling
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 should be
substantive and meaningful.
Resolution of Discovery Disputes
The dispositive motion deadline is used in assigning a trial date, which will generally be approximately
six months after the dispositive motion deadline.
It is hereby ORDERED that the following steps be undertaken by all parties prior to filing
any discovery motions:
The parties are 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 resolve all differences without court action or intervention.
In the event that all parties have made reasonable, good faith efforts 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 filing any discovery motions. The magistrate
judge may require the parties to submit brief position statements prior to the
If the discovery dispute is not resolved during the telephonic conference with the
magistrate judge, the magistrate judge may permit filing of discovery motions. In
connection with the filing of any such motions, the moving party must fully comply
with all requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1 and must submit the
certifications required by those rules.
The court will not hear any discovery motion unless the parties have made a sincere,
good faith effort to resolve the dispute and all of the above-described steps have
been strictly followed. 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 13th day of November, 2023.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
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?