CLEFL1 >' SO. DtT. OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GENERAL ORDER

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET CONTROL ORDER STEP ACTION RULE DATE DUE 1

Case 4:04-cv RAS Document 41 Filed 12/09/2004 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. District of Oregon. Plaintiff(s), vs. Case No: 6:07-CV-6149-HO. Defendant(s). Civil Case Assignment Order

Case 5:16-cv CAR Document 19 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) UNIFORM SCHEDULING ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. District of Oregon. Plaintiff(s) vs. Case No: 3:09-CV-642-HU. Defendant(s). Civil Case Assignment Order

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:10 cv 00071

Case 1:11-cv MGC Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Virginia ''from conducting any elections subsequent to 2014 for the. Office of United States Representative until a new redistricting plan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case: 2:15-cv MHW-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/01/15 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 143

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Case 1:15-cv LTS Document 29 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 7

Case 9:01-cv MHS-KFG Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1935

Case 1:11-cv JEM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2011 Page 1 of 8

Case: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 01/28/15 1 of 6. PageID #: 284 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. MDL No SCHEDULING ORDER NO. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. 09-CV MCALILEY [Consent Case]

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Funambol, Inc. Doc. 52

Case 2:18-cv KOB Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:16-cv JAK-AS Document 29 Filed 10/15/16 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:190

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV DT DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL D.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. ELAINE SCOTT, Plaintiff, Case No. 4:09-cv-3039-MH v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

Case 5:18-cv DAE Document 9 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 7

Smith v. RJM Acquisitions Funding, LLC Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. v. : Case No. 2:08-cv-31 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. v. Case No. 6:13-cv-1839-Orl-40TBS ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1

Case 1:13-cv MSK-MJW Document 3 Filed 05/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant/s.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNIFORM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Civil No. 1:13-CV-1211 vs. GLS/TWD Andrew Cuomo, et al.

U.S. District Court Western District of Tennessee (Jackson) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv JDT-sta

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORM 4. RULE 26(f) REPORT (PATENT CASES) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION MARY LOU BENNEK, Derivatively on ) Behalf of THE HOME DEPOT, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks

Case 6:01-cv MV-WPL Document Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:15-md FDS Document 1006 Filed 05/17/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

-SMS Owens v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc Doc. 19

Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: 460 Filed: 09/25/15 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 15864

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT EXPERT REPORT

~/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-MOORE/SIMONTON ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION

Case 1:10-cv SS Document 465 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Mann et al v. United States of America Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LOCAL RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURT. [Adapted from the Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana]

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 3703 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 6:95-cv JAP-ACT Document 459 Filed 08/23/04 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

CASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ERNEST TAYLOR CIVIL ACTION THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. NO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

It is hereby STIPULATED by and between all parties to the within action that disclosure shall proceed and be completed as follows:

Case4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11

vs. OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS DISCOVERY AND DOCKET CONTROL PLAN FOR LEVEL 3 CASE ( PLAN )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION. v. C.A. NO. C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO.3

Case 2:12-cv RJS-DBP Document 414 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

1. CIVIL RULES GENERAL PROVISIONS ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL LITIGATION MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - UNIFORM LOCAL RULES

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. V. No. 3:15-cv-818-D-BN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO: CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, LLC ORDER AND REASONS

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

AS MODIFIED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, STERLING SAVINGS BANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Transcription:

Martin v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. Doc. 3 i.l.ll? U.S. DISTRICT PORT SA'/AHNAk'f 13W. 2OL6 JUN -,4 P11 2:21+ CLEFL1 >' SO. DtT. OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA CASE NO. CV616-064 GENERAL ORDER Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires the parties to confer, develop a proposed discovery plan, and submit a report to this Court. Subsequent to the filing of the report, a Scheduling Order must be entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Therefore, by the earlier of 60 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 45 days after any defendant has appeared, the parties shall confer as provided in Rule 26(f). See L.R. 26.1. Within 14 days after the required conference held pursuant to Rule 26(f), the parties shall submit to the Court a written report conforming to the language and format of the Rule 26(f) Report attached to this Order. L.R. 26.1; see Appendix of Forms to Local Rules. Except in unusually protracted or complex cases, the parties will be expected to adhere to the following deadlines and limitations: Dockets.Justia.com

1. The parties shall serve all written discovery on opposing parties and shall complete all depositions within 140 days of the filing of the last answer of the defendants named in the original complaint. L.R. 26.1(d)(i). 2. The plaintiff must furnish the expert witness reports and disclosures required by Rule 26(3) within 60 days after the Rule 26(1) conference. L.R. 26.1(d)(ii). 3. The defendant must furnish the expert witness reports and disclosures required by Rule 26(2) within 90 days after the Rule 26(f) conference (or 60 days after the last answer, whichever is later). L.R. 26.1(d) (iii). 4. The last day for filing motions to add or join parties or amend the pleadings is 60 days after the first answer of the defendants named in the original complaint. L.R. 16.3. 5. The last day for filing all other motions, including Daubert motions but excluding motions in limine, is 30 days after the close of discovery. L.R. 7.4. Plaintiff's counsel shall ensure that a copy of this Order is served upon each party. Finally, a party who cannot gain the cooperation of the other party in preparing the Rule 26(f) report should advise the Court prior to the due date of the report of the other party's failure to cooperate. SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DIVISION Plaintiff V. Case No. Defendant ) RULE 26(f) REPORT 1. Date of Rule 26(f) conference: 2. Parties or counsel who participated in conference: 3. If any defendant has yet to be served, please identify the defendant and state when service is expected. 4. Date the Rule 26(1) disclosures were made or will be made: 5. If any party objects to making the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(1) or proposes changes to the timing or form of those disclosures, Identify the party or parties making the objection or proposal: Specify the objection or proposal

6. The Local Rules provide a 140-day period for discovery. If any party is requesting additional time for discovery, Identify the party or parties requesting additional time: State the number of months the parties are requesting for discovery: months (c) Identify the reason(s) for requesting additional time for discovery: Unusually large number of parties Unusually large number of claims or defenses Unusually large number of witnesses Exceptionally complex factual issues Need for discovery outside the United States (d) Other: Please provide a brief statement in support of each of the reasons identified above:

7. If any party is requesting that discovery be limited to particular issues or conducted in phases, please Identify the party or parties requesting such limits: State the nature of any proposed limits: 8. The Local Rules provide, and the Court generally imposes, the following deadlines: Last day for filing motions to add or join parties or amend pleadings Last day to furnish expert witness report by plaintiff Last day to furnish expert witness report by a defendant 60 days after issue is joined 60 days after Ru1e26(f) conference 90 days after Rule 26(f) conference (or 60 days after the answer, whichever is later)

C Last day to file motions 30 days after close of discovery If any party requests a modification of any of these deadlines, Identify the party or parties requesting the modification State which deadline should be modified and the reason supporting the request: 9. If the case involves electronic discovery, State whether the parties have reached an agreement regarding the preservation, disclosure, or discovery of electronically stored information, and if the parties prefer to have their agreement memoralized in the scheduling order, briefly describe the terms of their agreement: Identify any issues regarding electronically stored information as to which the parties have been unable to reach an agreement

10. If the case is known to involve claims of privilege or protection of trial preparation material, State whether the parties have reached an agreement regarding the procedures for asserting claims of privilege or protection after production of either electronic or other discovery material: Briefly describe the terms of any agreement the parties wish to have memoralized in the scheduling order (or attach any separate proposed order which the parties are requesting the Court to enter addressing such matters): (c) Identify any issues regarding claims of privilege or protection as to which the parties have been unable to reach an agreement: 11. State any other matters the Court should include in its scheduling order: 12. The parties certify by their signatures below that they have discussed the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and

the possibilities for prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Please state any specific problems that have created a hindrance to the settlement of the case: This day of, 20 Signed: Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant