You're viewing Docket Item 36 from the case Power Equipment Maintenance, Inc. v. Airco Power Services, Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 4:13-cv-00055-WTM-GRS Document 36 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

SAVANNAH DIVISION

Plaintiff, (cid:9)

v. (cid:9)

POWER EQUIPMENT (cid:9)
MAINTENANCE, INC., (cid:9)

)
)
)
)
) (cid:9)
)
AIRCO POWER SERVICES, INC., )
AIRCO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.,)
RONNIE ONOFRY and TROY (cid:9)
)
BURROWS, (cid:9)
)
)
)

Defendants. (cid:9)

Case No. CV413-055

O R D E R

Plaintiff and defendants in this case have each submitted a Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(f) report. Docs. 31 & 32. The federal and local rules, as well as

the Court’s initial order, require the parties to develop a proposed discovery

plan and submit a single written report outlining the proposed plan. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(f) (directing the parties to submit “ a written report” outlining

a proposed discovery plan) (emphasis added); L.R. 26.1(b) (same); doc. 6

(Order directing the parties to submit “a written report conforming to the

language and format of the Rule 26(f) Report attached to this Order

outlining their discovery plan.”). The standard form for Rule 26(f) reports

utilized in this district -- included as an appendix to the local rules and

Case 4:13-cv-00055-WTM-GRS Document 36 Filed 06/05/13 Page 2 of 4

attached to the General Order which the Court enters upon the filing of all

civil cases -- contemplates that the parties will not always be able to agree

fully as to all aspects of discovery and, where this occurs, directs the parties

to set out their opposing positions in that one document . The purpose of the

rules and this Court’s standard form is to avoid the very problem the

parties have created here by the filing of competing reports -- i.e., forcing

the Court to read and do a page-by-page comparison of two different 26(f)

reports in order to determine where there is agreement and where there are

disputes among the parties. The purpose of a single written report is to

avoid this burden and crystallize any disputes in one document.

Defendants assert that plaintiff jumped the gun and filed its report

before the deadline, without awaiting their comments. 1 Be that as it may,

plaintiffs should not have filed a unilateral Rule 26(f) report (for that is

what it was, even though they called it a “joint” report). Where a party

refuses to cooperate in the preparation of the report, the opposing party

may advise the Court of its inability to submit a joint report because of the

1 The Court notes, however, that defendants had plaintiff’s draft for 10 days and
that plaintiff filed its unilateral report on Friday, May 24, just before the deadline
expired on Monday, May 27, 2013. Defendants’ separate report was not filed until May
28, one day later.

2

Case 4:13-cv-00055-WTM-GRS Document 36 Filed 06/05/13 Page 3 of 4

noncooperating party, but it should not submit a unilateral report, for that

defeats the purpose of the rule. This Court knows how to deal with a party

who refuses to participate in the Rule 26(f) conference or assist in the

preparation of a proposed discovery plan. The submission of two reports

burdens the Court by forcing it to read and do a page-by-page comparison

of those documents to determine where there is agreement and where there

are disputes among the parties. The purpose of a single report is to avoid

this burden and crystallize any disputes in one document.

When faced with multiple Rule 26(f) reports the Court’s usual practice

is to require the parties to file a single, consolidated report. In this

instance, however, the Court has already invested its time in reviewing the

two reports and has determined that the parties are largely in agreement,

except as to the start date of discovery. As to that matter, defendants’

motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on its motion to dismiss or

transfer (doc. 30) is DENIED. The Court imposes the following deadlines:

DATE OF COMPLAINT (cid:9)

DATE OF RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE (cid:9)

LAST DAY FOR FILING MOTIONS TO AMEND
or ADD PARTIES (cid:9)

03/08/2013

05/14/2013

06/14/2013

3

Case 4:13-cv-00055-WTM-GRS Document 36 Filed 06/05/13 Page 4 of 4

LAST DAY TO FURNISH EXPERT WITNESS REPORT
by PLAINTIFF

LAST DAY TO FURNISH EXPERT WITNESS REPORT
by DEFENDANT

JOINT STATUS REPORT DUE

CLOSE OF DISCOVERY

LAST DAY FOR FILING CIVIL MOTIONS,
INCLUDING DAUBERT MOTIONS but
EXCLUDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
[30 DAYS AFTER CLOSE OF DISCOVERY]

08/14/2013

09/14/2013

09/06/2013

10/14/2013

11/14/2013

Motions in limine shall be filed no later than 5 days prior to the pre-trial
conference.
All motions, other than summary judgment motions and motions to
dismiss, shall be accompanied with a proposed order.

SO ORDERED this 5th day of June, 2013.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA