Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-CV-01713-REB-DLW
09-15-2011
BORGE JENSEN, Plaintiff(s), v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant.
Magistrate Judge David L. West
THIRD AMENDED ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST
The above captioned case has been referred to Magistrate Judge David L. West by Judge Robert E. Blackburn, pursuant to the Order of Reference filed August 17, 2011. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
(1) The court shall hold a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) scheduling/planning conference on
October 21, 2011 @ 9:00 a.m.
The conference shall be held in United States District Court, 103 Sheppard Drive, Room 235, Durango, Colorado 81303. The parties may appear in person or by telephone. If this date is not convenient for any party, he or she shall confer with opposing parties and file a motion to reschedule the conference to a more convenient time. That motion shall propose at least three (3) alternative dates for rescheduling. Absent exceptional circumstances, no request for rescheduling will be entertained unless a written motion is filed at least five (5) business days in advance of the scheduling/planning conference.
The term "party" as used in this Minute Order means counsel for any party represented by a lawyer, and any pro se party not represented by a lawyer.
A copy of instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form of scheduling order can be downloaded from the Court's website at www.co.uscourts.gov/forms_frame.htm (Click on "Civil Forms" in the blue box at the top of the screen and scroll down to the bold heading "Standardized Order Forms"). Parties shall prepare the proposed Scheduling Order in accordance with the Court's form.
The parties shall submit their proposed Scheduling Order, addressed to Magistrate Judge West at the United States District Court, P.O. Box 2906, Durango, Colorado 81302, or, if delivered by messenger, at United States District Court,103 Sheppard Drive, Room 202, Durango, Colorado 81303, on or before
October 16, 2011
(5 days before the scheduling/planning conference). It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff to notify all parties who have not entered an appearance of the date and time of the scheduling/planning conference, and to provide those parties with a copy of this Minute Order.
(2) In preparation for the scheduling/planning conference, the parties are directed to confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) on or before
September 30, 2011
(21 days prior to the scheduling/planning conference). The court strongly encourages the parties to meet face to face, but should that prove impossible, the parties shall meet by telephone conference. All parties are jointly responsible for arranging and attending the Rule 26(f) meeting.
During the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, make or arrange for the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), and develop a proposed scheduling/planning plan. The parties should also discuss the possibility of informal discovery, such as conducting joint interviews with potential witnesses, joint meetings with clients, depositions via telephone, or exchanging documents outside of formal discovery.
In those cases in which: (i) the parties' substantive allegations involve extensive computer-generated records; (ii) a substantial amount of disclosure or discovery will involve information or records in electronic form (i.e., e-mail, word processing, databases); (iii) expert witnesses will develop testimony based in large part on computer data and/or modeling; or (iv) any party plans to present a substantial amount of evidence in digital form at trial, the parties shall confer regarding steps they can take to preserve computer records and data; facilitate computer-based discovery, including who will bear the cost of such discovery; resolve privilege issues; limit discovery costs and delay; and avoid discovery disputes relating to electronic discovery. The parties shall be prepared to discuss these issues, as appropriate, in the proposed Scheduling Order and at the Scheduling Conference.
These are the minimum requirements for the Rule 26(f) meeting. The parties are encouraged to have a comprehensive discussion and are required to approach the meeting cooperatively and in good faith. The parties are reminded that the purpose of the Rule 26(f) meeting is to expedite the disposition of the action, discourage wasteful pretrial activities, and improve the quality of any eventual trial through more thorough preparation. The discussion of claims and defenses shall be a substantive, meaningful discussion. The parties are encouraged to exchange case authority supporting their respective positions.
The parties are reminded that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), no discovery shall be sought prior to the Rule 26(f) meeting.
(3) The parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before *. (14 days after the Rule 26(f) pre-scheduling conference meeting)
October 14, 2011
Counsel and parties are reminded that mandatory disclosure requirements encompass computer-based evidence which may be used to support claims or defenses. Mandatory disclosures must be supplemented by the parties consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Mandatory disclosures and supplementation are not to be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
(4) This matter also is referred to Magistrate Judge West for settlement purposes and with the authority to convene such settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case. Accordingly, the parties are directed to submit a Confidential Settlement Statement to Magistrate Judge West only, on or before
October 16, 2011
This statement shall briefly outline the facts and issues involved in the case, and the possibilities for settlement, including any settlement authority from the client. Confidential settlement statements shall be submitted to the Magistrate Judge (a) by delivery to chambers, United States District Court, 103 Sheppard Drive, Room 202, Durango, Colorado 81303; (b) by U. S. Mail at P. O. Box 2906, Durango, Colorado 81302; or sent by facsimile to (970) 259-0543. Only one copy of the confidential settlement statement should be submitted.
(5) All parties are expected to be familiar with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado Local Rules of Practice. Copies are available from Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, or through the District Court's web site: www.cod.uscourts.gov . All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.3 prior to the Scheduling/Planning Conference. Counsel and pro se parties are expected to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1L when presenting documents for filing.
BY THE COURT:
David L. West
United States Magistrate Judge