Opinion
19-CV-2978 (ALC) (KHP)
03-24-2022
MARISSA HOECHSTETTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.
SCHEDULING ORDER
KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 23, 2022, the parties appeared for an initial Case Management Conference. After review of the pleadings and consultation with the parties, the following scheduling order is entered pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Pleadings and Parties. Amended complaint due April 15, 2022. Last date to join parties April 15, 2022. No further amendments or joinder absent good cause.
Answer/Motion to Dismiss. Defendants are excused from answering complaints filed prior to April 15, 2022. Defendants shall answer or move with respect to the amended complaint by May 13, 2022. No pre-motion conference for a Rule 12 motion shall be required.
Discovery. All fact discovery shall be completed by March 31, 2023. The parties shall meet and confer about expert discovery related to class certification and damages and be prepared to discuss proposed dates at the next case management conference.
Interim Discovery Deadlines. The parties shall submit their proposed protective order by April 15, 2022. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures and an initial set of relevant documents by May 6, 2022. Plaintiffs shall provide HIPPA compliant medical releases to Defense counsel so Defendants can obtain medical records relevant to liability and damages by May 6, 2022. The parties shall submit their proposed ESI protocol by June 16, 2022. The Court will issue an appropriate ESI order in the absence of agreement by the parties. The parties shall meet and confer about other interim deadlines and be prepared to discuss proposed deadlines with the Court at the next case management conference.
Status Conferences. The Court will issue a separate scheduling order for monthly case management conferences. The parties are ordered to file a joint letter one week in advance of each conference that reflects the agenda items for the conference.
Discovery Disputes. The parties shall follow the Court's Individual Procedures with respect to any discovery disputes. See http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Parker.
Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(1). Counsel shall comply with Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(1) in the conduct of discovery.
Document Requests. Counsel shall be fully familiar with their obligations under Rules 34 and 26(g) and consider and discuss ways to ensure compliance and minimize disputes regarding overbreadth and specificity of requests and responses. A failure to comply with this responsibility carries serious consequences. Requests for any and all documents on a broad topic are presumptively improper. Likewise, courts have held that an objection that does not appropriately explain its grounds is forfeited. See, e.g., Wesley Corp. v. Zoom T.V. Prods., LLC, No. 17-100212018, 2018 WL 372700, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2018); Fischer v. Forrest, No. 14 Civ. 01304 (PAE) (AJP), 2017 WL 773694 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) (“[A]ny discovery response that does not comply with Rule 34's requirement to state objections with specificity (and to clearly indicate whether responsive material is being withheld on the basis of objection) will be deemed a waiver of all objections (except as to privilege).”).
SO ORDERED.