UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM THOMAS, )
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 99-0330(GK)
)
v. ) FILED
) JUN 10, 1999
OFFICER DAVID LOMBARDI ) NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK
Defendants, ) U.S. DISTRICT COURT
_______________________________)
ORDER FOR INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
The above captioned case has been assigned to this Judge
for resolution. The Initial Scheduling Conference is set for JULY
20, 1999 at 9:45 A.M. in Courtroom 19. Counsel who attend must
be sufficiently familiar with the case to answer any questions
which arise; parties are welcome and are encouraged to attend.
Pursuant to Rule 206 of the Local Rules and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(f) and 1, counsel shall submit their Joint Meet and Confer
Statement addressing all topics listed in Rule 206 (c) no later
than 10 days following their meeting. Counsel are also directed
to either include in their Joint Meet and Confer Statement or
in a supplemental pleading to be filed no later than 72 hours
prior to the Initial Scheduling Conference, a brief statement
of the case and the statutory basis for all causes of action and
defenses.
In considering, pursuant to Rule 206 (c) (1) the case tracking
category in which the case should be placed, counsel should be
guided by the schedules contained in Appendix I to this Order.
-1-
Counsel are required to comply with Local Rule 206 and, in
particular, Rule 206(c), as amended August 15, 1995, and attached
hereto as Appendix II. In considering what form of alternative
dispute resolution the parties think the case most suited to,
counsel are reminded that amongst their options are mediation,
arbitration, early neutral evaluation, summary jury trial, or
any other form of alternative dispute resolution which can be
tailored to the needs of their case.
Extensions or enlargements of time will not be granted
at any time solely upon stipulation by the parties. Any requests
for a continuance or other scheduling change must include alternative
dates that have been agreed to by all parties. Requests that do
not included an alternative date acceptable to all parties will
be denied.
Parties are to communicate with the Court by motion, opposition,
and reply, not by letter. Inquiries concerning the status of any
pending matter shall be directed to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk,
Ms. Phyllis Brown (202-354-3142), or if she is unavailable to
the staff person in the Clerk's Office designated as her substitute,
and not to chambers. Chambers personnel will not handle questions
relating to the status or scheduling of pending matters.
In an emergency, however, chambers can be reached at 202-354-3440.
June 10, 1999
(signed) Gladys Kessler
GLADYS KESSLER
U.S. District Judge
APPENDIX I
Case Tracking Schedules
The following are the presumptive schedules to be followed
by the Court. Variations may be appropriate in light of individual
case differences. All time-frames are calculated from the date
of the initial scheduling conference unless otherwise indicated.
Track One Track Two Track Three
(Fast) (Standard) (Complex)
Exchange Witness 15 days 30 days 60 days
Lists
Deadline for Post- 30 days 45 days 90 days
R. 26(a) Discovery
Requests
Proponent's R. 26 N/A 60 days 120 days
(a)(2) Statements
Opponent's R. 26 N/A 90 days 150 days
(a)(2) Statements
All discovery 60 days 120 days 210 days
closed
Deadline for 75 days 150 days 240 days
Filing Motions
Pretrial Conference 4 months 6-7 months 9-12 months
If alternative dispute resolution is ordered, the Court
anticipates a 30-60 day interruption in the schedules set forth
above, depending on which particular procedure is used and at
what point it is used.
APPENDIX II
Rule 206
DUTY TO MEET AND CONFER
(C) MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED BY THE PARTIES.
At the meeting required by this Rule, the parties shall
discuss the following matters:
* * *
(5) Whether the case could benefit from the Court's alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) procedures or some other form of ADR);
what related steps should be taken to facilitate such ADR; and
whether counsel have discussed ADR and their response to this
provision with their clients. In assessing the above, counsel
shall consider:
(I) the client's goals in bringing or defending the litigation;
(ii) whether settlement talks have already occurred and,
if so, why they did not produce an agreement;
(iii) the point during the litigation when ADR would be
most appropriate, with special consideration given to:
(aa) whether ADR should take place after the informal exchange
or production through discovery of specific items of information;
and
(bb) whether ADR should take place before or after the
judicial resolution of key legal issues;
(iv) whether the parties would benefit from a neutral evaluation
of their case, which could include suggestions regarding the focus
of discovery, the legal merits of the claim, an assessment of
damages and/or the potential settlement value of the case; and
(v) whether cost savings or any other practical advantage
would flow from a stay of discovery or of other pre-trial proceedings
while an ADR process is pending.