United States of America et al v. NCR Corporation et al

Filing 322

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER - signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 03/21/2012. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 10-C-910

NCR CORP. and APPLETON PAPERS INC. et al.,
Defendant.

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The parties have submitted a joint report and discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f). They have agreed that the case should proceed in phases, with the first being devoted to the
Plaintiffs’ fifth claim for relief. The parties disagree as to how Phase I should proceed. API and
NCR believe that Phase I should initially focus on the question of divisibility. The other parties
argue that there should be subphases, with a Phase 1a focusing not on divisibility but on whether
the response action required by the UAO was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance
with law. Any other issues would be put off into a Phase 1b.
I am satisfied that it makes sense to allow simultaneous discovery on both of the issues
described above during Phase 1. To the extent there are significant costs involved in discovery on
the divisibility question, these are costs that would likely be incurred at a future date in any event.
Although I will grant API’s and NCR’s request to allow discovery on these other issues during
Phase 1, I agree with Plaintiffs and certain of the Defendants that we should begin with a Phase 1a
involving the response action required by the UAO. This subphase should not require significant

or any discovery. Any motion challenging the completeness or of the administrative record or
seeking to supplement it shall be filed on or before May 4, 2012. In all other respects, I adopt the
proposal of the parties contained in the joint report. If the parties have not already done so, they
shall complete their required initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) relating to Phase 1a issues
(including divisibility) on or before April 1, 2012, unless otherwise stipulated. All Defendants who
are non-UAO recipients are exempt from this requirement. If further scheduling is required, the
parties should contact the Court.
SO ORDERED this

21st

day of March, 2012.

s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge

2