Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stewart v. Atwood

November 22, 2010

GAYLE STEWART, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL ATWOOD, BARRY BISTIS, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leslie G. Foschio United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This action has been referred to the undersigned, a magistrate judge of this court, by order of Hon. William M. Skretny for entry of a scheduling order in accordance with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures ("Federal Rules") and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1.

Each party, including any party appearing for themselves without counsel, shall appear before the undersigned on January 6, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. at 310 U.S. Courthouse, 68 Court Street, Buffalo, New York for the purpose of entry of a case management order as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b).

All parties should note that the case is subject to mandatory pretrial mediation as required by the court's Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan ("the ADR Plan") approved by the court's District Judges in their order dated August 23, 2005 as revised January 1, 2008. The parties are urged to consult the ADR Plan as revised and a related document, Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures, copies of which are available from the Clerk of Court and on the court's website at www.nywd.uscourts.gov.

The parties' attention is drawn to the obligation of the parties to select a mediator in accordance with Section 5.4C of the ADR Plan, and propose to the undersigned a timetable to be included in the Rule 16 scheduling order for commencing and completing the mediation. Such dates, in addition to the other relevant timetables for the pretrial phase of this case as requested herein, shall be submitted by the parties to the undersigned along with the proposed Discovery Plan for this case required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules and this order. Accordingly, the parties shall consider and advise the court in the Discovery Plan regarding the extent to which, if any, discovery may be needed to facilitate the mediation required by the ADR Plan.

All parties should note significant amendments to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, 30, 34, 37 and 45, effective December 1, 2006, that require certain pretrial disclosures and affect the scope and conduct of any discovery in this case especially with respect to electronically stored information. (See attached summary.) By Local Rules adopted and effective May 1, 2003, this court has modified Rules 26, 30 and 34. See Local Rules of Civ.P. W.D.N.Y. 26, 30 and 34.

As required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), the parties shall confer at least 21 days prior to the Rule 16(b) hearing as scheduled above for (1) the purposes set forth in Rule 26(f)(2) preparation of the required Proposed Discovery Plan, and (2) to propose to the court a Case Management Order that will establish outside cut-off dates for the further progress of this case including:

(a) Making all disclosures as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1).

(b) Motions to amend the pleadings or add parties.

(c) Commencement and completion of mediation pursuant to the ADR Plan.

(d) Limited discovery to facilitate mediation pursuant to the ADR Plan.

(e) Commencement and completion of all fact discovery.

(f) Completion of all expert discovery, if any, by each party including strict compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) regarding the identification ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.