Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 9 of
9
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 RegisterActionDate "2018-11-27" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER adopting in part 64 Plaintiffs' Rule 26(f) Report and 65 Defendants' Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan to the extent reflected in the following Scheduling Order: (1) the Court declines to defer entry of a Scheduling Order pending resolution of 59 Motion for Reconsideration, in light of 63 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 45 Motion for Reconsideration (which raised many of the same basic issues as 59 Motion and which otherwise appears unlikely to result in the dismissal of this action); (2) the Court declines to bifurcate (or trifurcate, as Defendants effectively request) the discovery process; (3) the parties shall complete all discovery and shall conduct mediation by 02/28/2020; (4) the interrogatory, request for admission, and deposition limitations in Paragraph 2.b. and c. of 64 Plaintiff's Rule 26(f) Report shall apply; (5) the parties shall file any motions seeking leave to amend pleadings or to add parties by 05/28/2019; (6) Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Action Determination (as contemplated by Local Rule 23.1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)) by 06/28/2019; (7) the parties shall serve any expert disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by 10/28/2019; (8) the parties shall file any rebuttal expert reports (as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii)) by 12/13/2019; (9) the ESI Protocol in Paragraph V.3. of 65 Defendants' Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan shall apply; and (10) if a party inadvertently discloses information in connection with the pending litigation that the party thereafter claims to be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or as trial preparation material, the disclosure of that information will not necessarily constitute or be deemed a waiver or forfeiture, in this or any other federal, state, arbitration, or other proceeding, of any claim of privilege or protection as trial preparation material that the party would otherwise be entitled to assert with respect to that information and its subject matter. Defendants proposed an initial period of discovery limited to addressing First Amendment issues, followed by a round of dispositive motion practice. Defendants further proposed that no other activity would occur until the Court ruled on any such dispositive motions and that (if the Court did not enter judgment for Defendants based on that round of motion practice) the Court then would set a further schedule for another period of discovery effectively limited to class certification issues, followed by another round of motion practice (during which and prior to the resolution of no further activity would occur). Only after resolution of the class certification issue, according to Defendants, should any "merits" discovery occur. As its mere description suggests, Defendants' formula carries with it the prospect of lengthy delay in the ultimate resolution of this case. Nor must the Court embrace that prospect to ensure that Defendants have an opportunity to litigate any First Amendment issues as soon as they wish. In that regard, although Local Rule 56.1(b) sets a deadline for dispositive motions at 30 days after the close of discovery, nothing in the Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure precludes Defendants from filing a dispositive motion related to any First Amendment issue at any earlier point in the litigation. Moreover, upon filing any such First Amendment-related motion, Defendants could seek a stay of further discovery pending resolution of the First Amendment-related motion. With the issues then more clearly defined, the Court could make a more informed decision about balancing the prospect of delay against the prospect that further discovery might prove unnecessary. Similarly, the Court has set a deadline for Plaintiffs to seek a determination of class action status prior to the conclusion of all discovery, in the hopes of avoiding undue delay in reaching an ultimate resolution of the case and given the preferences embodied in Local Rule 23.1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1) favoring early attention to the class action determination. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 11/27/2018. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 11/27/2018)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 hasJudgeReference SJ004076 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de52 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de69 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de75 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de76 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00925_de77 @default.