Omni Innovations LLC v. Ascentive LLC et al

Filing 73

JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties; estimated Trial Days: 5.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Townsend, Roger)

Omni Innovations LLC v. Ascentive LLC et al

Doc. 73

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 73

Filed 04/06/2007

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. v. ASCENTIVE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ADAM SCHRAN, individually and as part of his marital community; JOHN DOES, I-X, Defendants.

The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; Emily Abbey, an individual, Plaintiffs, No. 06-CV-01284 TSZ

PROPOSED FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) JOINT STATUS REPORT

Counsel for all parties herein conferred telephonically on April 4, 2007 pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) and now together hereby submit this Joint Status Report. 1. A statement of the nature and complexity of the case. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks redress for what they allege to be the unlawful initiation and transmission of electronic mail under 15 USC 7701 et seq., and RCW 19.190 et seq. Defendants deny the claims. 2. A statement of which ADR method (mediation, arbitration, or other) should be used. The parties do not believe this case would benefit from court ordered mediation. Unless all parties agree that there should be no ADR, a statement of when mediation or another ADR proceeding under Local Rule CR 39.1 should take
NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610 Seattle, Washington 98104 [phone]

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) JOINT STATUS REPORT [06-CV-01284 TSZ] - 1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 73

Filed 04/06/2007

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. 4.

place. See #2 above A proposed deadline for joining additional parties. May 30, 2007. A proposed discovery plan. A. Rule 26(f) Conference: A telephonic discovery conference between the

parties took place on April 4, 2007. The parties have exchanged their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) initial disclosures. B. Protective Order. The parties shall submit a proposed stipulated

protective order. C. Electronic Exchange of Documents: The expense of discovery can be

minimized by agreement of all parties to cooperate to exchange document electronically whenever possible. The parties agree that each responding party will Bates stamp all paper and PDF documents produced. The parties further agree they will accept e-mail service of all documents, including service of propounding discovery and discovery responses, and any other documents required to be served (e.g., service of papers filed under seal). E-mail service on Plaintiffs will be valid upon delivery to <[e-mail]>. E-mail service on Defendants will be valid upon delivery to all of <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, and <[e-mail]>. D. Duplicative Production: Defendants request the Court order the parties

not to produce any duplicate documents in response to discovery requests. Plaintiffs do not agree to this request, but Plaintiffs would agree to an order requiring the parties to use best efforts to avoid duplicative production. E. F. Discovery Cutoff: The parties request a discovery cutoff of April 1, 2008. Filing deadline for Discovery Motions: The parties request a filing

deadline for motions to compel of April 1, 2008. In the event the Court grants a
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) JOINT STATUS REPORT [06-CV-01284 TSZ] - 2
NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610 Seattle, Washington 98104 [phone]

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 73

Filed 04/06/2007

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. 6.

discovery motion after the discovery cutoff, then the parties would conduct further discovery limited to the relief provided in such an order. G. Dispositive Motions: The parties request a dispositive motion filing

deadline of 1, 2008. Whether the parties agree that a full-time magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings, including trial and the entry of judgment, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule MJR 13. The parties are not amenable to a full-time Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings. 7. Whether the case should be bifurcated by trying the liability issues before the damages issues, or bifurcated in any other way. The parties agree this matter should not be bifurcated. Whether the pretrial statements and pretrial order called for by Local Rules CR 16(e), (h), (i), and (l) and 16.1 should be dispensed with in whole or in part for the sake of economy. The parties do not believe that pretrial statements and a pretrial order should be dispensed with in whole or in part for the sake of economy. 9. The date the case will be ready for trial. The parties request that trial be scheduled for a date at least five (5) months after the deadline for dispositive motions so that the Court may have ample opportunity to rule before the parties begin trial preparation, which may unnecessarily include claims that may be disposed of by motion. The parties propose a trial date of September 1, 2008. 10. Whether the trial will be jury or non-jury. Neither party has made a jury demand, but all parties reserve the right to do so on or before the deadline provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. The number of trial days required. The parties anticipate that the case can be tried in five (5) days.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) JOINT STATUS REPORT [06-CV-01284 TSZ] - 3

NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610 Seattle, Washington 98104 [phone]

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 73

Filed 04/06/2007

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

12.

The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all trial counsel. For Defendants: Derek A. Newman, WSBA 26967 Roger M. Townsend, WSBA 25525 Newman & Newman, Attorneys at Law, LLP 505 Fifth Avenue S., Suite 610 Seattle, WA 98104 [phone] (Main) [phone] (Fax) Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]

For Plaintiffs: Robert J. Siegel, WSBA 17312 Douglas McKinley, Jr. WSBA 20806 i.Justice Law, P.C. 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940 Seattle, WA 98101 [phone] Email: [e-mail]

13.

If on the due date of the Report, all defendants or respondents have not been served, counsel for the plaintiffs shall advise the Court when service will be effected, why it was not made earlier, and shall provide a proposed schedule for the required FRCP 26(f) conference and FRCP 26(a) initial disclosures. The parties agree that all named defendants have been served.

14.

Whether any party wishes a scheduling conference prior to a scheduling order being entered in the case. The parties agree that a further scheduling conference, prior to a scheduling order

being entered in this case, is not currently necessary. DATED this 6th day of April, 2007

i.Justice Law, P.C. /s/ Robert J. Siegel with authorization Robert J. Siegel, WSBA#17312 Attorney for Plaintiff

Newman & Newman Attorneys at Law LLP

BY:

BY:

Derek A. Newman, WSBA #26967 Roger M. Townsend, WSBA #25525 Attorneys for Defendants

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) JOINT STATUS REPORT [06-CV-01284 TSZ] - 4

NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610 Seattle, Washington 98104 [phone]