Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Greenwell v. Scott

November 6, 2007

WILLIAM GREENWELL, AND WIFE, PATRICIA GREENWELL, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MARY LOU SCOTT, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

(SHIRLEY)

SCHEDULING ORDER

1. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), a scheduling conference was held in this cause on November 5, 2007. Present representing the plaintiff was attorney Scott Hurley. Present representing the defendant was attorney John T. Johnson. The following actions were taken:

2. JURISDICTION

In this case, the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court has been invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and is not in dispute. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and have specifically consented to the undersigned [Doc. 4].

3. SETTLEMENT/ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

(a) The possibility of settlement is fair to good at this time. Counsel will advise the Court if the parties desire Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and the Court's involvement with regard to the same.

4. DISCLOSURE AND DISCOVERY

(a) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Meeting

The parties have already held a discovery planning meeting as required by Rule 26(f) on November 5, 2007.

(b) E-Discovery

At the Rule 26(f) meeting, counsel for the parties shall confer and determine whether any party will likely be requested to disclose or produce substantial information from electronic or computer based media. If so, the parties are directed to determine: (i) whether disclosure or production will be limited to data reasonably available to the parties in the ordinary course of business; (ii) the anticipated scope, cost and time required for disclosure or production of data beyond what is reasonably available to the parties in the ordinary course of business; (iii) the format and media agreed to by the parties for the production of such data as well as agreed procedures for such production; (iv) whether reasonable measures have been taken to preserve potentially discoverable data from alteration or destruction in the ordinary course of business or otherwise; (v) whether there are other problems that the parties anticipate may arise in connection with electronic or computer-based discovery; and (vi) the name of the person responsible for each party's document retention policies and the name of the individual through which discovery requests and responses to each party are to be made. It is expected the parties will confer and cooperatively reach an agreement as to how e-discovery will be conducted in this case.

(c) Discovery Plan

At the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties shall, if they have not already done so, develop a discovery plan and file it with the court within the next ten (10) days after this meeting. This discovery plan shall conform to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).

(d) Initial Disclosures

Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures will be made by November 30, 2007.

(e) Expert Testimony

Disclosure of any expert testimony in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be made by plaintiff on or before ninety (90) days before trial, and by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.