Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

King v. Medical Data Systems, Inc., 2:19-cv-01462-JCM-VCF. (2020)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20200320993 Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2020
Summary: JOINT REPORT FROM RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY PLAN SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(e) CAM FERENBACH , Magistrate Judge . COMES NOW, Jacquita King, by and through her attorney of record, Francis Arenas, Esq., and Defendant Medical Data Systems, Inc., by and through their attorneys of record, Jorge A. Ramirez, Esq. and Jonathan C. Pattillo, Esq., of the law firm, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, and in compliance with LR 26-1(e), submit the following Stipulated Di
More

JOINT REPORT FROM RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY PLAN SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(e)

COMES NOW, Jacquita King, by and through her attorney of record, Francis Arenas, Esq., and Defendant Medical Data Systems, Inc., by and through their attorneys of record, Jorge A. Ramirez, Esq. and Jonathan C. Pattillo, Esq., of the law firm, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, and in compliance with LR 26-1(e), submit the following Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and LR 26-1(e), Plaintiffs and Defendants conferred by telephone conference on February 27, 2020. Counsel discussed the nature of the case, the potential for settlement, initial disclosures, the case schedule, and the Parties' respective views on a discovery plan. During and following the conference, the Parties worked together to prepare the following discovery plan. The Parties' positions are outlined below, including agreements and disagreements.

(A) Rule 26(a) Disclosures FRCP 26(f)(3)(A)

What changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made?

The parties agree that no changes should be made in timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a). The parties will exchange their Rule 26(a) disclosures on or before March 27, 2020.

(B) Anticipated Scope of Discovery FRCP 26(f)(3)(B)

What are the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when should discovery be completed, and should discovery be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues?

Discovery will be needed on all allegations, claims, theories of liability, damages and affirmative defenses raised in the Complaint and Answers. The parties do not believe that discovery should be conducted in phases, limited to or focused on particular issues.

The parties request 180 days to complete discovery in this case. In turn, this serves the interest of judicial economy as it provides for the narrowing of issues and litigants before the Court.

Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(e), discovery in this action can be completed within 180 days from the date the Defendants answered or otherwise plead.

(C) Electronically Stored Information FRCP 26(f)(3)(C)

Are there any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information and in what form or forms should it be produced?

There are no issues about disclosure, discovery or preservation of electronically stored information and such data like text, images and metadata, if requested, should be produced in its ordinary and usual form, or the form it is frequently accessed in.

(D) Privilege Issues FRCP 26(f)(3)(D)

Are there any issues about claims or privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials? Did the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production? Are the parties asking the court to include their agreement in an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502?

The parties do not anticipate any issues about claims or privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material. The parties will assert the claims as they arise, and the parties are not now requesting the court to include any agreements in an order.

(E) Changes to Discovery Limitations FRCP 26(f)(3)(E)

What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed?

The parties are not requesting any changes be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under the federal rules, or by local rule.

(F) Other Discovery & Scheduling Orders FRCP 26(f)(3)(F)

Are there any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26 (c) or under Rule 16 (b) and (c)?

At this time, the parties are not requesting any additional orders be issued.

DISTRICT OF NEVADA LR 26-1 (b)

Discovery Cut Off:

5/15/2020 (180 Days from first answer)

Date First Defendant Answered:

November 12, 2019.

Number of days required for discovery from Date First Defendant Answered:

180

Calendar Date Discovery Closed:

May 15, 2020.

Deadline for Filing Motions to Amend Pleadings/Parties (90 days before close of discovery):

February 14, 2020.

Initial Expert Disclosures (60 days before cutoff):

March 13, 2020.

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures (30 days after initial):

April 17, 2020.

Dispositive Motions Deadline (30 days after discovery cut off):

June 19, 2020.

Joint Pretrial Order Deadline (30 days after dispositive motion deadline):

If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be 7/24/2020 suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order.

Alternative Dispute Resolution: The parties certify that they met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative-dispute resolution processes including mediation, arbitration, and early neutral evaluation.

Alternative Forms of Case Disposition: The parties certify that they considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. 636 (c) and FRCP 73, and the use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 2013-01):

Electronic Evidence for Jury Demands: The parties certify they discussed whether they intend to present evidence in electronic format to jurors and any stipulations.

DATED: 19th day of March 2020. DATED: 19th day of March 2020. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS ARENAS WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP /s/Francis Arenas /s/ Jonathan C. Pattillo Francis Arenas, Esq. Jorge A. Ramirez, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6557 Nevada Bar No. 6787 7500 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 286 Jonathan C. Pattillo, Esq. Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Nevada Bar No. 13929 Attorneys for Plaintiff 300 South Fourth Street, 11th Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED,

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer