Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hotaling v. Bergquist - Document No. 10
Hotaling v. Bergquist - Document No. 10
10
Case 1:07-cv-00357-EWN-CBS Document 10 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 4
SCOTT HOTALING,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
Upon a telephonic request of counsel for Defendant on March 5, 2007, and Plaintiff
having no objection, it is ordered that the March 26, 2007, scheduling conference is VACATED
and RESET to
The conference shall be held in Courtroom A-402, Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.
Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. If this date is not convenient for any party1, he or
she shall confer with opposing parties and contact the court to reschedule the conference to a
more convenient time. Please remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj
United States Courthouse will be required to show valid photo identification. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B.
A copy of instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form 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.
1
The term “party”as used in this Order means counsel for any party represented by a
lawyer, and any pro se party not represented by a lawyer.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:07-cv-00357-EWN-CBS Document 10 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 2 of 4
The parties shall submit their proposed scheduling order, pursuant to District of Colorado
Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures V.L., on or before:
Attorneys and/or pro se 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.
(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:
March 9, 2007
The court strongly encourages the parties to meet face to face, but should that prove impossible,
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 FED.R.CIV.P. 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.
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
Case 1:07-cv-00357-EWN-CBS Document 10 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 3 of 4
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:
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 Shaffer for settlement purposes and
with the authority to convene such settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may
facilitate resolution of this case. The scheduling and planning conference is not a settlement
conference, and no client representative is required to appear. Nonetheless, to facilitate an early
evaluation for the possibility of settlement, parties participating in ECF shall e-mail a brief (115
pages or less) Confidential Settlement Statement in PDF format to
[email protected] on or before 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) on March
23, 2007. 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
settlements that are over fifteen (15) pages are to be submitted to the court as hard copies and
shall be delivered to the office of the Clerk of the Court in an envelope marked “PRIVATE PER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHAFFER’S ORDERS”.
Attorneys and/or pro se parties not participating in ECF shall submit a single copy of their
confidential settlement statement, on paper and marked “Personal and Confidential,”either by
hand delivery to the Clerk’s Office or mailed directly to Magistrate Judge Shaffer at 901 19th
Street, Denver, Colorado 80294.
(5) All parties are expected to be familiar with the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado Local Rules of Practice (D.C.COLOL.CIVR.). 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.COLOL.CIVR. 83.3 prior to the
Scheduling/Planning Conference.
Parties are further advised that the dispositive motion deadline of October 22, 2007, set by
Judge Nottingham remains in effect.
Case 1:07-cv-00357-EWN-CBS Document 10 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 4 of 4
BY THE COURT:
s/Craig B. Shaffer
Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge