BROWN v. AMERICAN AIRLINES
Filing
11
ORDER granting 10 Motion to Reset Scheduling Conference. The Initial Case Management Conference set for July 30, 2014 is cancelled and is rescheduled for Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 11:00 A.M., in the United States Courthouse, Suite 8170, 700 Gr ant Street, Pittsburgh. The Rule 26(f) conference of the parties must occur no later than July 30, 2014. The parties Rule 26(f) written report and Stipulation Selecting ADR Process shall be filed within 14 days after the conference, but in no event later than August 13, 2014. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 6/25/14. (bfm )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EMMETT W. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 14-383
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RESCHEDULE INITIAL SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE
AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that Defendant’s Motion to Reset Scheduling Conference [ECF#10] is GRANTED.
Pursuant to Local Rules 16.1 and 16.2, an initial case management conference will be
conducted to discuss narrowing of the issues, the extent of pretrial preparation, discovery
procedures, the early disposition of controlling questions of law, and probable extent of provable
damages, the possibility of settlement, and the designation of an Alternative Dispute Resolution
process.
I.
Rule 26(f) Conference and Written Report
As required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties must, as
soon as practicable and in any event at least 21 days before the initial case management
conference, confer to “consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the
possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures
required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and
develop a proposed discovery plan.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).
Pursuant to Rule 26(f), the “attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have
appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good
faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after
the conference a written report outlining the plan.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).
The written report required by Rule 26(f) shall be in the form set forth in the Local Rules
at Appendix LCvR 16.1A, a form of which is attached as Exhibit A. This court requires strict
compliance with Rule 26.
II.
Stipulation Selecting ADR Process
Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2.D. at the Rule 26(f) conference “the parties are required to
discuss and, if possible, stipulate to an ADR Process.” LCvR 16.2.D. The parties shall file with
the Court the “Stipulation Selecting ADR Process” attached hereto as Exhibit B in order to
comply with Local Rule 16.2.D’s requirement that the parties “shall (1) designate the specific
ADR process that the parties have selected, (2) specific the time frame within which the ADR
process will be completed, and (3) set forth any other information the parties would like the
Court to know regarding their ADR designation.” LCvR 16.2.D.
1. The Initial Case Management Conference set for July 30, 2014 is cancelled and is
rescheduled for Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 11:00 A.M., in the United States
Courthouse, Suite 8170, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh. Chief trial counsel shall
attend the conference.
2. The Rule 26(f) conference of the parties must occur no later than July 30, 2014.
3. The parties’ Rule 26(f) written report and Stipulation Selecting ADR Process shall
be filed within 14 days after the conference, but in no event later than August 13,
2014.
2
Counsel should be familiar with this Court's Practices and Procedures available at
http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judge/cohill_pp.pdf.
s/Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
_
Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
Senior United States District Court Judge
3
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?