Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration Order setting scheduling conference — Phmpt v. FDA (N.D. Tex.)

Court filing

Order setting scheduling conference — Phmpt v. FDA (N.D. Tex.)

Filed October 18, 2021 in Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration; one of 30 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Filed2021-10-18

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas · No. 4:21-cv-01058-P · Doc. 16 · 2021-10-18 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
FORT WORTH DIVISION 
 
    
 
PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL 
PROFESSIONALS FOR 
TRANSPARENCY, 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
FOOD AND DRUG 
ADMINISTRATION, 
  
 
Defendant. 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
§ 
§ 
 
 
Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01058-P 
 
 
ORDER 
 
This Order is being sent to all counsel and unrepresented parties who have appeared. 
If there are other defendants who have not appeared, but who have been in contact with the 
plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel, then the plaintiff’s counsel (or the plaintiff if the plaintiff is 
unrepresented) is responsible for contacting such defendants and making every effort to 
ensure their meaningful participation in the conference. 
I. 
 
Lead counsel for each party (or designee attorney with appropriate authority) and 
any unrepresented party (except for a prisoner litigant proceeding pro se) shall confer (the 
“Scheduling Conference”) in a face-to-face conference as soon as practicable, and 
consider (1) the nature and basis for their claims and defenses; (2) the possibilities for a 
prompt resolution of the case; (3) to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and to prepare the joint report described below.  While 
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 1 of 5   PageID 93
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 1 of 5   PageID 93

2 
 
the Court acknowledges the unique challenges presented by the COVID-19 Pandemic, it 
is still the Court’s belief that a personal face-to-face meeting is usually the most 
productive type of conference.  Thus, the parties are required to conduct the 
Scheduling Conference in person.  As a result of the Scheduling Conference, counsel 
shall prepare and submit a Report Regarding Contents of Scheduling Order (“Joint 
Report”). 
II. 
 
The Joint Report, which shall be filed on or before November 5, 2021, shall include 
the following in separate numbered paragraphs (but NOT in a proposed order format): 
(1) 
A statement detailing the date on which the Scheduling Conference 
 
was held, the location of the Scheduling Conference, the names of the 
 
attorneys present, a statement regarding whether meaningful progress 
 
toward settlement was made, and—without disclosing settlement 
 
figures—a statement regarding the prospects of settlement; 
 
(2) 
A brief statement of the claims and defenses; 
 
(3) 
A proposed time limit to amend pleadings and join parties; 
 
(4) 
A proposed time limit to file various types of motions, including 
 
dispositive motions; 
 
(5) 
A proposed time limit for initial designation of experts and responsive 
 
designation of experts; 
 
(6) 
A proposed time limit for objections to experts (i.e., Daubert and 
 
similar motions); 
 
(7) 
A proposed plan and schedule for discovery, a statement of the 
 
subjects on which discovery may be needed, a time limit for 
 
completing factual and expert discovery, and a statement of whether 
 
discovery should be conducted in phases; 
 
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 2 of 5   PageID 94
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 2 of 5   PageID 94

3 
 
(8) 
A statement on whether any limitations on discovery need to be 
 
imposed, and if so, what limitations; 
 
(9) 
A statement on how to disclose and conduct discovery on 
 
electronically stored information (“ESI”) and any statement on 
 
disputes regarding disclosure and/or discovery of ESI; 
 
(10) 
Any proposals regarding handling and protection of privileged or 
 
trial-preparation material that should be reflected in a Court Order; 
 
(11) 
A proposed trial date, the estimated number of days for trial, and 
 
whether a jury has been demanded; 
 
(12) 
A proposed mediation deadline; 
 
(13) 
A statement as to when and how disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 
 
26(1) were made or will be made; 
 
(14) 
A statement as to whether the parties will consent to a trial (jury or 
 
bench) before United States Magistrate Judges Cureton or Ray (if all 
 
parties consent, please submit the attached consent form); 
 
(15) 
Whether a conference with the Court is desired, and if so, a brief 
 
explanation why; 
 
(16) 
Any other proposals regarding scheduling and discovery that the 
 
parties believe will facilitate expeditious and orderly preparation for 
 
trial, and any other orders that should be entered by the Court under 
 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b), 16(c), and 26(c). 
 
 
The filing of the Joint Report is mandatory.  When submitting proposed dates to 
the Court, the parties should assume that the Scheduling Order will be entered by the 
Court within approximately one month from the date of the parties’ Joint Report.  
All parties shall endeavor to prepare joint suggestions, but if they cannot agree, the Joint 
Report shall reflect their respective views.  In such a case, the Joint Report shall set forth 
with each party’s respective recommendation a statement of why agreement could not be 
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 3 of 5   PageID 95
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 3 of 5   PageID 95

4 
 
reached.  The names of any persons named in the case who did not participate in the 
conference shall be identified in the Joint Report. 
III. 
 
Unless the plaintiff is unrepresented, lead counsel for the plaintiff is responsible for 
initiating contact with opposing counsel and all unrepresented parties for the purpose of 
arranging the Scheduling Conference and preparing the Joint Report.  Lead counsel for all 
parties and unrepresented parties are equally responsible for seeing that this Order is 
complied with in a timely manner.  At least one counsel for each party and all unrepresented 
parties shall sign the Joint Report prior to filing. 
IV. 
 
Because pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(2), the Court is to enter 
a Scheduling Order “as soon as practicable, but in any event within the earlier of 120 days 
after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 90 days after any defendant has 
appeared,” any request for extension of time to file the Joint Report shall be denied absent 
a showing of good cause. 
V. 
 
Unless a scheduling conference with the Court is set, a Scheduling Order will be 
issued following the Court’s review of the Joint Report. 
VI. 
 
Unless this action is exempted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(E), or 
objection to disclosure is asserted at the Scheduling Conference, in good faith, as provided 
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 4 of 5   PageID 96
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 4 of 5   PageID 96

5 
 
in Rule 26(a)(1)(C), the parties must make the disclosures described in Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) within fourteen days of the date set out in Paragraph II hereof. 
V. 
Miscellaneous  
 
(1) 
All briefs filed with the Court shall comply with the most recent edition of 
The Bluebook:  A Uniform System of Citation.  Counsel are specifically directed to provide, 
where applicable, the subsections of cited statutes, and to provide pincites when citing 
cases.   
 
(2) 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Local Civil Rule 7.1(b), 
certificates of service and of conference shall address all parties, including co-defendants 
and co-plaintiffs. 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) and 56.6, all documentary and non-
documentary evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion must be 
included in an appendix.  Regarding documentary evidence submitted in an appendix, the 
Court requires that the proponent of the appendix underline, or for large passages bracket 
in the margins, the portion of each page of the appendix upon which he relies to support 
his position. 
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of October, 2021. 
 
Mark T. Pittman 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 5 of 5   PageID 97
Case 4:21-cv-01058-P   Document 16   Filed 10/18/21    Page 5 of 5   PageID 97

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.txnd.353278.16.0.pdf
Size
134,079 bytes
SHA-256
aa9cf72a27950a7e8374546025519d078a015c43e27ac7288bc04cd62e0e79b8
Our copy
gov.uscourts.txnd.353278.16.0.pdf
Original
archive.org
  1. First Joint Report — PHMPT v. FDAsame docket · 2021-11-05
  2. FDA's answer to complaint — PHMPT v. FDAsame docket · 2021-10-18
  3. Second Joint Report — PHMPT v. FDAsame docket · 2021-11-15
  4. Exhibit (2021-09-16)same docket · 2021-09-16
  5. Plaintiff's brief in support of timely production — PHMPT v. FDAsame docket · 2021-12-06
  6. FDA brief in advance of scheduling conference — PHMPT v. FDAsame docket · 2021-12-06
  7. Court Filing — TXND Case 353278, Doc. 23same docket · 2021-12-06
  8. Appendix in Support of Brief for Timely Production — PHMPT v. FDAsame docket · 2021-12-07
  9. FOIA request (Exhibit A to complaint) — PHMPT v. FDAsame case · 2021-09-16
  10. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief — PHMPT v. FDAsame case · 2021-09-16
  11. FDA reply brief in advance of scheduling conference — PHMPT v. FDAsame case · 2021-12-13
  12. Scheduling order (production schedule) — PHMPT v. FDAsame case · 2022-01-06
  13. FDA memorandum supporting motion to modify scheduling order — PHMPT v. FDAsame case · 2022-01-18
  14. FDA's motion to partially modify scheduling order — PHMPT v. FDAsame case · 2022-01-18
  15. Second Declaration of Suzann Burk (FDA) — PHMPT v. FDAsame case · 2022-01-18
  16. Pfizer memorandum supporting motion to intervene — PHMPT v. FDAsame case · 2022-01-21
  17. on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federalsame docket · 2021-09-16
  18. Brief in Support of Timely Productionsame docket · 2021-12-07
  19. Pursuant to pre vious Court Orders (ECF Nos. 16, 19), th e Partiessame docket · 2021-12-14
  20. Pfizer Motion for Leave to Intervene — PHMPT v. FDAsame docket · 2022-01-21

Part of: Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas · Other pandemic litigation · Suits against governments and agencies · Orders and opinions · 2021 · Court filings

Back to top