Case 1:13-cv-01945-WJM-CBS Document 7 Filed 07/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01945-WJM-CBS
DETECTIVE JOE RYAN HARTLEY,
DETECTIVE RYAN WOLFF,
DETECTIVE MIKE DUFFY,
DETECTIVE HEATHER MYKES, and
INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL DICKENSON, in their individual capacities,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, and
DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING
This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer by District Judge William J.
Martinez, pursuant to the Order Referring Case (doc. #4) filed July 23, 2013. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A)
and (B) and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a) and (b).
(1) The court shall hold a FED.R.CIV.P. 16(b) scheduling and planning conference on
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
October 7, 2013, at
9:15 a.m. (Mountain Time)
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
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.
Case 1:13-cv-01945-WJM-CBS Document 7 Filed 07/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
A copy of instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be
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.
downloaded from the “Forms” section on the Court’s website under the “Standardized Order Forms”
order and also email an editable version to [email protected]
no later than:
In accordance with D.C. COLO. ECF. PROC. 5.12, the parties shall file their proposed scheduling
Seven (7) days prior to the
The plaintiffs shall notify all parties who have not yet entered an appearance of the
date and time of the scheduling/planning conference, and shall provide a copy of this
Order to those parties.
accordance with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(f), no later than:
(2) In preparation for the scheduling/planning conference, the parties are directed to confer in
Twenty-one (21) days prior to the
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
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.
generated records; (ii) a substantial amount of disclosure or discovery will involve information or records
in electronic form (i.e., e-mail, word processing, databases); (iii) expert witnesses will develop testimony
based in large part on computer data and/or modeling; or (iv) any party plans to present a substantial
amount of evidence in digital form at trial, the parties shall confer regarding steps they can take to preserve
computer records and data, facilitate computer-based discovery and who will pay costs, resolve privilege
issues, limit discovery costs and delay, and avoid discovery disputes relating to electronic discovery. The
parties shall be prepared to discuss these issues, as appropriate, in the proposed Scheduling Order and at
the scheduling and planning conference.
In those cases in which: (i) the parties’ substantive allegations involve extensive computer-
Case 1:13-cv-01945-WJM-CBS Document 7 Filed 07/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
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 claims and defenses shall be a substantive, meaningful discussion.
the Rule 26(f) meeting.
no later than:
(3) The parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(1)
The parties are reminded that pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 26(d), no discovery shall be sought prior to
Seven (7) days prior to the
(4) All parties are expected to be familiar with the United States District Court for the District of
All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C.COLOL.CIVR. 83.3 prior to the
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.
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:
DATED at Denver, Colorado on July 30, 2013.
s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge
BY THE COURT: