Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC et al

Filing 53

Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC et al

Doc. 53

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VJRG
NORFOLK DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

BID FOR POSITION, LLC,

Pkintiff'
v.

Civil Action No. 2:07cv582

AOL, LLC, et al,
Defendants.

RULE 26ffl PRFTRIAL ORDER

Subject to any special appearance, questions of jurisdiction, or other
motions now pending, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. On March 3.2008 at 2:00 p.m., the parties shall confer for the purpose

of conducting the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (hereinafter

"Rule") 26(f). Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, the parties shall meet in
person at the offices of counsel located closest to the courthouse at Norfolk. By

agreement of the parties, this conference may be conducted at anytime prior to the Rule
16(b) conference or at any place and by any means of communication so long as the

parties accomplish the purposes of Rule 26(f) in a timely manner. The parties' proposed
discovery plan shall provide for completion of all discovery on or before July 9,2008,
and shall be formulated to accommodate a trial date before September 11,2008. The

parties shall report orally upon their discovery plan at the subsequent Rule 16(b)
conference and the plan shall not be filed with the Court.

2. The Rule 16(b) scheduling and planning conference will be conducted at

the Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse in Norfolk on March 11, 2008, at 9:00
a.m.

Dockets.Justia.com

(a) The Rule 16(b) conference may be rescheduled for an earlier date by

agreement of the parties, subject to the availability of the court; however, the

conference may not be postponed to a later date without leave of court. If the

date poses an unavoidable conflict for counsel, and all counsel and unrepresented
parties can agree on an alternate date, please call Susan Cherry in the Clerk's
Office at [phone] for assistance.

(b) At the conference, all parties shall be present or represented by an

attorney, admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Virginia, who possesses the authority to agree upon all discovery and scheduling matters that may reasonably
be anticipated to be heard by the court.

(c) The parties are advised that the court has instituted a procedure for

Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) contained in Local Rule 83.6. In accordance with Local Rule 83.6(D), utilization of ADR procedures shall not operate to change any date set by order of the court, by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, or by the Local Rules of Practice.

(d) The parties shall complete the initial disclosures set forth in Rule

26(a)(l) on or before March 25.2008. Any objections to the requirement of

initial disclosure, and any unresolved issues regarding the discovery plan, shall be
addressed at the Rule 16(b) conference.

3. Subject to the limitations imposed in pretrial orders, the parties may

initiate any form of discovery at anytime subsequent to the date of this order, provided
that no party will be required to respond to a deposition notice or other form of discovery
sooner than April 7.2008, unless specifically ordered by the court. All objections to

interrogatories and requests for production and admission should be served within fifteen

(15) days after service of such discovery requests. The failure of a party to comply with
any disclosure provision, or any other form of discovery, will not excuse any other party

from the failure to comply with any disclosure provision or any other form of discovery. 4. Interrogatories to any party by any other party shall be limited to thirty

(30) to number, including sub-parts. Depositions of nonparty, non-expert witnesses shall be limited to five (5) to number. There shall be no limit placed upon the number of depositions of military witnesses, or of witnesses not subject to summons for mal, wh,ch are undertaken by the proponent of the witness for the purpose of presenting such deposition testimony at trial. By agreement of me parties, or upon good cause shown, the court may enlarge the number of interrogatories which may be served upon a party, and the number of depositions which may be taken, or limit the number of deposmons of
military witnesses, or those taken by the proponent of the witness for present*TM m
evidence to lieu of the appearance of the witness.

Tommy E. Miller

United States Magistrate Judge

^

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: February 22,2008