Scott v. Scribd, Inc

Filing 307

Download PDF
Scott v. Scribd, Inc Doc. 307 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ELETHER JOE SHEPHERD v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA C.A. NO: 4:07-cv-02216 JURY DEMANDED JOINT DISCOVERY CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDER RULE 26(f) FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1. State where and when the meeting of the parties required by Rule 26(f) was held and identify the counsel who attended for each party. a. b. c. October 1, 2007. Meeting held by telephone conference, October 1, 2007. James C. Plummer, Counsel for Plaintiff; Craig S. Wolcott, Counsel for Defendant. 2. List the cases related to this one that are pending in any state or federal court with the case number and court: None of which the parties are aware. 3. Briefly describe what this case is about. Elether Joe Shepherd worked for the City of Huntsville, Texas, employment he had had since 1996. He was a Crew Leader in the Parks Department performing maintenance on the various City park facilities. On October 19, 2004, because of the onset of an illness, he ceased work, and made application for disability insurance benefits. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada provided disability insurance benefits for the City of Huntsville. They denied Mr. Shepherd's claim although Mr. Shepherd was disabled within the definition of the Sun Life policy. Sun Life denies Mr. Shepherd is or was disabled, or that it was obligated to make payment K : \ S h e p h e r d \ R u l e 26(f).w p d Dockets.Justia.com under the policy. It further denies any liability for the extra-contractual claims asserted by Mr. Shepherd. Defendant denies Plaintiff's claim that he is no longer able to work because of his health condition, as of October 19, 2004. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was disabled under the terms of the Defendant's policy, and Defendant denies that Plaintiff was entitled to benefits under the terms of the policy. 4. Specify the allegation of federal jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332; 5. Name the parties who disagree and the reasons. The parties are in agreement. 6 List anticipated additional parties that should be included, when they can be added, and by whom they are wanted. None anticipated at this time. 7. List anticipated interventions. None. 8. Describe class-action issues. None anticipated at this time. 9. State whether each party represents that it has made the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a). If not, describe the arrangements that have been made to complete the disclosures. Plaintiff's initial disclosures have not been made. They will be made on or before October 5, 2007. Defendant's initial disclosures were made on September 11, 2007. 10. Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan, including: a. Responses to all matters raised in Rule 26(f). The parties will exchange initial disclosures as requested by Rule 26(a) and do not anticipate the need for any special discovery arrangements modifying the local rules -2- K : \ S h e p h e r d \ R u l e 26(f).w p d or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. b. When and to whom the Plaintiffs anticipate they may send interrogatories. Plaintiff will serve interrogatories and production requests on Defendant on or before 90 days from the scheduling conference. The parties have stipulated that responses to that discovery will be due in accordance with the Federal Rules. c. When and to whom the Defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories. Defendant anticipates serving discovery requests on Plaintiff on or before 90 days from the date of the scheduling conference. The parties have stipulated that responses to that discovery will be due in accordance with the Federal Rules. d. Of whom and by when the Plaintiffs anticipate taking oral depositions. Plaintiff anticipates taking the deposition of defendant's claims personnel involved in the decision to terminate Plaintiff disability benefits, the deposition of a corporate representatives, and two or three fact witnesses as yet to be determined. Plaintiff also anticipates taking the depositions of any expert witness designated by Defendant within a reasonable time after their designation.. e. Of whom and by when the Defendant anticipates taking oral depositions. Defendant anticipates deposing the Plaintiff, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Shepherd's health care providers, and two or three fact witnesses. f. When the plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) will be able to designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and when the opposing party will be able to designate responsive experts and provide their reports. Plaintiff will designate his experts on or before January 1, 2008. Defendant will designate its experts on or before February 1, 2008. g. Expert depositions the Plaintiffs anticipate taking and their anticipated completion date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(expert report). Plaintiff anticipates taking the depositions of Defendant's experts within sixty (60) days of their designation. h. List expert depositions the Defendant anticipates taking and their anticipated -3- K : \ S h e p h e r d \ R u l e 26(f).w p d completion date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(expert report). Defendant anticipates taking the deposition of Plaintiff's experts within sixty (60) days of the date of designation. 11. If the parties are not agreed on a part of the discovery plan, describe the separate views and proposals of each party. The parties agree on the discovery plan, except as noted. 12. Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date. None. 13. State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed. The parties anticipate that discovery can reasonably be completed on or before March 30, 2008. 14. Describe the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case that were discussed in your Rule 26(f) meeting. The parties have initiated discussions attempting to find common ground. It is anticipated those discussions will continue. 15. Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt resolution. See response to the preceding answer. 16. From the attorneys' discussion with the client, state the alternative dispute resolution techniques that are reasonably suitable. The parties believe that non-binding mediation is an appropriate alternative dispute resolution method for resolving this matter if their discussions are not successful. 17. Magistrate Judges may now hear jury and non-jury trials. Indicate the parties' joint position on a trial before a magistrate Judge. The parties do not agree to a trial before a magistrate judge. -4- K : \ S h e p h e r d \ R u l e 26(f).w p d 18. State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time. A jury demand was made timely. 19. Specify the number of hours it will take to present the evidence in this case. Plaintiff anticipates the presentation of his case in chief should not exceed 8 hours. Defendant's anticipate the presentation of their defense to not exceed 4 to 5 hours. 20. List pending motions that could be ruled on at the initial pretrial and scheduling conference. None. 21. List other motions pending. None. 22. Indicate other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, that deserve the special attention of the court at the conference. None at this time. 23. List the names, bar numbers, addresses and telephone numbers of all counsel. James C. Plummer TBA # 16075700 Fed. I.D. 3692 PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES 4200 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 410 Houston, Texas 77006 (713) 522-2887 (713) 522-3605 (fax) jplummer@plummerlawyers.com Attorney-in-Charge for Plaintiff: Craig S. Wolcott, Esq. HAYS, McCONN, RICE & PICKERING, P.C. State Bar No. 21845475 Fed. ID No. 0881 400 Two Allen Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 -5- K : \ S h e p h e r d \ R u l e 26(f).w p d Telephone: (713) 654-1111 Facsimile: (713) 650-0027 Wolcott@Haysmaconn.com Attorney-in-Charge for Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Of Counsel: Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. 400 Two Allen Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 654-1111 Facsimile: (713) 650-0027 Attorneys for Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Respectfully submitted, By: /s/James C. Plummer James C. Plummer, TBA #16075700 Fed. I.D. 3692 PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES 4200 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 410 Houston, Texas 77006 (713) 522-2887 (713) 522-3605 (Fax) jplummer@plummerlawyers.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF By: /s/Craig S. Wolcott Craig S. Wolcott Attorney-in-Charge Texas State Bar No. 21845475 400 Two Allen Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 654-1111 (713) 655-9212 (Telecopier) * K : \ S h e p h e r d \ R u l e 26(f).w p d -6- cwolcott@haysmcconn. com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA * By Permission CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 7th day of May, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. A true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Rule 26(f) Joint Discovery Case Management Plan was served by hand deliver, certified mail, return receipt requested, or by fax transmission on October 1, 2007 to: Craig S. Wolcott, Esq. Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. 400 Two Allen Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 /s/James C. Plummer James C. Plummer K : \ S h e p h e r d \ R u l e 26(f).w p d -7-

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?