Order Requiring Scheduling Conference — Blessed Cajuns LLC et al. v. Guzman, Case 4:21-cv-00677-O (Dkt. 42, N.D. Tex.)
- Document type
- order
- Date
- 2021-10-15
Summary
An Order Requiring Scheduling Conference and Report for Contents of Scheduling Order in Blessed Cajuns LLC et al. v. Isabella Casillas Guzman et al., Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-00677-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, filed October 15, 2021 as Document 42. Entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), it directs lead counsel to confer no later than October 29, 2021 and to file a Joint Report on or before November 12, 2021. The order lists 19 numbered topics the Joint Report must cover, including proposed deadlines, a discovery plan, a proposed trial date, settlement and mediation, and consent to trial before a magistrate judge. It is signed by United States District Judge Reed O’Connor. The nine-page document attaches a consent form, an order of reassignment form and a notice of right to consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Order Requiring Scheduling Conference — Blessed Cajuns LLC et al. v. Guzman, Case 4:21-cv-00677-O (Dkt. 42).”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com, dated 2021-10-15. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-10-15-order-requiring-scheduling-conference/
, SHA-256 e51dfcc5620030a55dbac9f55c85195594eef49c42aebb5298bc47a4c8544dd6.Full text
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1254
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
BLESSED CAJUNS LLC et al., §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-00677-O
§
ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER REQUIRING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND REPORT FOR CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), Rule 26, and the Court’s Civil Justice Expense and
Delay Reduction Plan, the Court enters this Order to promote possible early settlement of this
action and to facilitate subsequent entry of a Scheduling 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 a designee attorney with appropriate authority) and any
unrepresented party (except for a prisoner litigant proceeding pro se) shall confer (the
“Scheduling Conference”) as soon as practicable, but in any event no later than October 29,
2021, 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 Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and to prepare the report described below. It is the Court’s belief that a personal
1
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID 1255
face-to-face meeting is usually the most productive type of conference, but the Court will leave
to the professionalism of the parties a determination of the form for the Scheduling Conference.
As a result of the Scheduling Conference, counsel shall prepare and submit a Report Regarding
Contents of Scheduling Order (“Joint Report”). The Joint Report shall also include a status report
on settlement negotiations but shall not disclose settlement figures.
II
The Joint Report, which shall be filed on or before November 12, 2021, shall include the
following in separate numbered paragraphs (but NOT in a proposed Order format):
(1) A brief statement of the claims and defenses;
(2) A proposed time limit to file motions for leave to join other parties;
(3) A proposed time limit to amend the pleadings;
(4) Proposed time limits to file various types of motions, including dispositive
motions (NOTE: The dispositive motion deadline cannot be less than 90 days
before trial; the Court prefers 120 days);
(5) A proposed time limit for initial designation of experts;
(6) A proposed time limit for responsive designation of experts;
(7) A proposed time limit for objections to experts (i.e., Daubert and similar
motions);
(8) A proposed plan and schedule for discovery, a statement of the subjects on which
discovery may be needed, a time limit to complete factual discovery and expert
discovery, and a statement of whether discovery should be conducted in phases or
limited to or focused upon particular issues;
2
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID 1256
(9) What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under
these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed;
(10) Proposed means for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information
(“ESI”) and a statement of any disputes regarding the disclosure or discovery of
ESI;
(11) Any proposals regarding the handling and protection of privileged or trial-
preparation material that should be reflected in a Court Order.
(12) A proposed trial date, estimated number of days required for trial and whether a
jury has been demanded (NOTE: Generally, the proposed trial date should be
approximately one year after the date the initial complaint was filed);
(13) A proposed date for further settlement negotiations;
(14) Objections to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) asserted at the Scheduling Conference, and
other proposed modifications to the timing, form or requirement for disclosures
under Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when disclosures under Rule
26(a)(1) were made or will be made;
(15) Whether the parties will consent to trial (jury or non-jury) before U.S. Magistrate
Judge Cureton or U.S. Magistrate Judge Ray1 (if all parties consent, please submit
the attached consent form);
(16) Whether the parties are considering mediation or arbitration to resolve this
litigation and a statement of when it would be most effective (e.g., before
discovery, after limited discovery, after motions are filed, etc.), and, if mediation
1
Due to the size of the Court’s docket, the Court typically imposes stringent time limits on parties and
rarely provides special trial settings, whereas the Magistrate Judge’s docket allows for greater flexibility
for the parties.
3
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID 1257
is proposed, the name of any mediator the parties jointly recommend to mediate
the case;
(17) Any other proposals regarding scheduling and discovery that the parties believe
will facilitate expeditious and orderly preparation for trial;
(18) Whether a conference with the Court is desired; and
(19) Any other matters relevant to the status and disposition of this case, including any
other Orders that should be entered by the Court under R. 16(b) and (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 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 plaintiff is unrepresented, lead counsel for 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.
4
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID 1258
IV
Because pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 an
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 is an action exempted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E), or objection to
disclosure is asserted at the Scheduling Conference, in good faith, as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(c), the parties must make the disclosures described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) within
fourteen days of the date set out in Paragraph I hereof.
VII
Miscellaneous
(1) All briefs filed with the Court shall comply with the most recent edition of The
Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. Particularly, counsel are directed to provide, where
applicable, the subsections of cited statutes, and to provide pincites when citing cases, i.e.,
provide the page where the stated legal proposition can be found. See Bluebook Rules 3.2-3.4
(Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 20th ed. 2015) (regarding pincites and subsections).
Furthermore, if a brief contains citations to unpublished opinions or to LEXIS, counsel must
attach copies of those cases to the brief.
5
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID 1259
(2) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and local civil rule 7.1(b), certificates of service and
conference shall address all parties, including co-defendants and co-plaintiffs.
(3) Pursuant to local civil rules 7.1(I) and 56.6, all documentary and non-documentary
evidence submitted in support of or opposition to a motion must be included in an appendix.
Regarding the documentary evidence submitted in an appendix, this 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 this 15th day of October 2021.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID 1260
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
BLESSED CAJUNS LLC et al., §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-00677-O
§
ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN et al., §
§
Defendants. §
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties to the above
captioned civil matter hereby waive their right to proceed before a United States District Judge
and consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in
the above styled case (including the trial) and order entry of a final judgment.
Party or Counsel of Record (please designate) Date
_____________________________________________ _________________________
_____________________________________________ _________________________
_____________________________________________ _________________________
NOTE: Return this form to the District Clerk only if it has been executed by all parties to the case
other than those in default. Upon doing so, you must also file a “Notice of Consent” on the docket in
this case.
7
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID 1261
ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above captioned matter be reassigned to the United
States Magistrate Judge Cureton or Judge Ray for the conduct of all further proceedings and the
entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the foregoing consent of the
parties.
____________________________ _________________________________________
DATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
Case 4:21-cv-00677-O Document 42 Filed 10/15/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID 1262
TRIALS BY THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b) provide that upon the consent of all
parties in a civil case, the district judge may enter an order reassigning the civil case to a
magistrate judge. Miscellaneous Order # 6 of the Northern District of Texas provides that it is
the plaintiff’s obligation to attach a copy of this notice to the complaint and summons, when
served.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
You have the opportunity to consent to the exercise of civil jurisdiction over your case by
a magistrate judge. If all parties involved in your case consent, the presiding district judge may
enter an order of transfer and reassign your case to a magistrate judge.
Your decision to consent, or not to consent, to the reassignment of your case to a
magistrate judge is entirely voluntary and without any adverse consequences if you choose not to
consent. Your decision should be communicated to the clerk of the district court using the form
entitled: Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge (“consent form”). It is
preferred that all parties submit the consent form jointly, but it may be submitted individually if
necessary. A district judge or magistrate judge will not be informed of any party’s response to
this notice unless all parties have consented to the referral of the matter to a magistrate judge.
Even if all parties consent to the exercise of civil jurisdiction by a magistrate judge, the
district judge may choose not to enter an order reassigning the case to a magistrate judge.
However, if the district judge does enter an order of transfer, and reassigns your case to the
magistrate judge, the magistrate judge is then authorized to conduct any or all proceedings in the
case, including a jury or non-jury trial, and order the entry of a final judgment. Upon entry of
judgment by the magistrate judge in any case referred under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(3) provides that “an aggrieved party may appeal directly to the appropriate United States
court of appeals from the judgment of the magistrate judge in the same manner as an appeal from
any other judgment of a district court.”
9
File and source
- File
- blessed_cajuns_guzman__docket-59928863__doc-42__id-183009202__Order_for_Scheduling_Order_Proposal.pdf
- Size
- 237,677 bytes
- SHA-256
- e51dfcc5620030a55dbac9f55c85195594eef49c42aebb5298bc47a4c8544dd6
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com