Stein v. Depke

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 24, 2022
Docket4:20-cv-00102
StatusUnknown

This text of Stein v. Depke (Stein v. Depke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stein v. Depke, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Justin Stein, et al., No. CV-20-00102-TUC-JCH

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Alyssa Depke, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14

15 Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Case Management 16 Conference is set for February 28, 2022 at 11:30 a.m. The conference will be held 17 telephonically in chambers. The parties shall call 888-363-4735 and enter access code 18 5538514 at the time set for the conference. 19 A. Rule 26(f) Meeting and Case Management Report. 20 The parties are directed to meet and confer at least 10 days before the Case 21 Management Conference as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). At this 22 meeting the parties shall consider the expedited trial alternative set forth in section B below 23 and shall develop a joint Case Management Report which contains the information called 24 for in section C below. 25 B. Expedited Trial Alternative. 26 The parties may elect to take this case directly to trial — whether jury or bench trial 27 —without discovery and without motion practice. The intent of this expedited trial 28 alternative is to afford parties a ready trial forum in which cases can be resolved without 1 the time and expense normally required for discovery and motion practice. 2 1. An expedited trial will be held in this case if all parties agree to such a trial. 3 2. If the parties elect to proceed to an expedited trial: 4 a. No formal discovery or motion practice will occur. 5 b. The Joint Case Management Report required by section C below need not 6 include the information called for in section C(8), (12), (14), and (15). 7 c. At the Case Management Conference scheduled above, the Court will set a 8 Final Pretrial Conference within two months. At the Final Pretrial 9 Conference, the Court will give the parties a firm trial date, usually within 10 two or three months of the Final Pretrial Conference. Thus, the expedited 11 trial likely will occur within four of five months of the Case Management 12 Conference. 13 3. Counsel for each party is required to discuss this expedited trial alternative with his 14 or her client before the Rule 26(f) conference. As part of this discussion, counsel must provide his or her client with two good faith estimates of the costs (including 15 attorneys’ fees) of litigating this case to completion: (a) an estimate of the cost if an 16 expedited trial is elected, and (b) an estimate of the cost if an expedited trial is not 17 elected and typical discovery and motion practice occur. The intent of this 18 requirement is to ensure that clients clearly understand the potential cost savings of 19 an expedited trial. 20 4. Each counsel must certify in the Joint Case Management Report that he or she has 21 held the client discussion required in the immediately preceding paragraph. Each 22 pro se litigant must certify that he or she has considered the expedited trial 23 alternative. 24 5. If the parties identify other expedited procedures that might reduce the cost of 25 litigating this case to completion, such as limited discovery leading to an expedited 26 trial with no motion practice, they may propose such procedures in the Joint Case 27 Management Report. 28 C. Joint Case Management Report. 1 The parties’ Joint Case Management Report shall contain the following information 2 in separately numbered paragraphs. 3 1. The parties who attended the Rule 26(f) meeting and assisted in developing the 4 Case Management Report; 5 2. A list of the parties in the case, including any parent corporations or entities (for 6 recusal purposes); 7 3. A short statement of the nature of the case (3 pages or less); 8 4. The jurisdictional basis for the case, describing the basis for jurisdiction (see the 9 accompanying footnote) and citing specific jurisdictional statutes1; 10 5. Any parties which have not been served and an explanation of why they have 11 not been served, and any parties which have been served but have not answered 12 or otherwise appeared; 13 6. A statement of whether any party expects to add additional parties to the case or 14 otherwise to amend pleadings (the Court will set a deadline after the Case Management Conference to join parties or amend pleadings); 15 7. Whether the parties elect the Expedited Trial described in section B above, and 16 a certification that all parties have complied with the requirements set forth in 17 section B. 18 8. A listing of contemplated motions and a statement of the issues to be decided by 19 these motions (including motions under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, 20 704, and 705); 21 22 23 1 If jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the report shall include a statement of 24 the citizenship of every party and a description of the amount in dispute. See 28 U.S.C. §1332. The parties are reminded that (1) a corporation is a citizen of the state where it is 25 incorporated and the state of its principal place of business, and (2) partnerships and limited liability companies are citizens of every state in which one of their partners or members 26 resides. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c); Indus. Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990); Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 692 27 (7th Cir. 2003). The parties are further reminded that the use of fictitious parties (“John Doe” or “ABC Corporation”) “casts no magical spell on a complaint otherwise lacking in 28 diversity jurisdiction.” Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Inc. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1970) (citations omitted). 1 9. Whether the case is suitable for reference to a United States Magistrate Judge 2 for a settlement conference or trial; 3 10. The status of related cases pending before other courts or other judges of this 4 Court; 5 11. A discussion of any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically 6 stored information, including the parties’ preservation of electronically stored 7 information and the form or forms in which it will be produced (see Rule 8 16(b)(3), 26(f)(3)); 9 12. A discussion of any issues relating to claims of privilege or work product (see 10 Rules 16(b)(3), 26(f)(3)); 11 13. A discussion of whether an order under the Federal Rules of Evidence 502(d) is 12 warranted in this case; 13 14. A discussion of necessary discovery, including: 14 a. The extent, nature, and location of discovery anticipated by the parties; b. Suggested changes, if any, to the discovery limitations imposed by the 15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 16 c. The number of hours permitted for each deposition. 17 15. A statement of when the parties exchanged or will exchange Federal Rule of 18 Civil Procedure 26(a) initial disclosures; 19 16.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stein v. Depke, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-depke-azd-2022.