United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING
BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.
This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Robert E. Blackburn, pursuant to the Order of Reference dated January 29, 2014. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and (b).
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The court will hold a scheduling/planning conference pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) on:
The conference will be held in Courtroom A-401, Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 90119th Street, Denver, Colorado. If this date is not convenient for any party, that party shall confer with opposing parties and contact my chambers to reschedule the conference to a more convenient date. Please remember anyone entering the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2(b).
A copy of the instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form of scheduling order can be downloaded from the court's website at www.cod.uscourts.gov. Parties shall prepare the proposed scheduling order in accordance with the court's form.
The parties shall submit their proposed scheduling order, pursuant to District of Colorado Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") Procedures V.6.0, including a copy of the proposed scheduling order in a WordPerfect or Word format sent via e-mailed to Boland_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov, all as required by ECF Procedure V.6.0, on or before:
Attorneys and/or parties not participating in ECF shall submit their proposed scheduling order on paper to the Clerk's Office. However, if any party in the case is participating in ECF, it is the responsibility of that party to submit the proposed scheduling order pursuant to the District of Colorado ECF Procedures.
The plaintiff shall notify all parties who have not yet entered an appearance of the date and time of the scheduling/planning conference and provide a copy of this Order to those parties.
(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:
The court encourages the parties to meet face to face, but if that is not possible, the parties may 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 Rule 26(a)(1); and develop their proposed scheduling/discovery 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, 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/planning 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 ...