Rule 16 IPTC Scheduling Order And Joint Electronic Discovery (Judge Peck)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X Plaintiffs, -againstRULE 16 IPTC SCHEDULING ORDER Defendants. ----------------------------------------- X ANDREW j. PECK, United States Magistrate judge: Based on the Initial Pretrial Conference pursuantto Rule 16, Fed. R. Civ. P., held on -------------------- before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Any motion to join parties or amend the pleadings must be made by- 2. All fact and expert discovery must be completed by ---------- Expert reports must be served by __________ Mandatory initial disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., is due - - - - - - - - -. The parties shall discuss any issues with respect to electronic discovery, complete the Joint Electronic Discovery Submission (Ex. B) (available on the S.D. N.Y. website under my Individual Practices) to the extent applicable to the case and submit it to the Court by _________ 3. Each party will notify this Court (and the District Judge) by - - - - - - - - - as to whether it intends to move for summary judgment and, if required by the District Judge's Individual Practices, request a pre-motion conference. Assuming pre- C:\ORD\16RULES American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com 2 motion clearance has been obtained from the District Judge where required, summary judgment motions must be filed by _ _ _ _ _ _ if no date was set by the District Judge or, if a date was set by the District Judge, in accordance with the schedule set by the District Judge, and must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the S.D. N.Y. Local Rules, and the Individual Practices of the District Judge to whom this case is assigned (including any pre-motion conference requirements of the District Judge). 4. The parties are to submit a joint proposed pretrial order, in conformance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the S.D.N.Y. Local Rules, and the Individual Practices of the District Judge to whom this case is assigned, by ______ if neither party is moving for summary judgment, or 30 days after decision on the summary judgment motion. The case will be considered trial ready on 24-hours notice after the pretrial order has been submitted. 5. A status conference will be held before the undersigned on M. in Courtroom 20D (500 Pearl Street). The parties are directed to follow the "Individual Practices of Magistrate ----- at 6. Judge Andrew J. Peck," a copy of which is available on the S.D.N.Y website. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York [DATE] Andrew J. Peck United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: C:\ORD\ 16RULES American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com EXHIBITB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff(s) -against- No.: _ _cv,------,-,-,---- Joint Electronic Discovery Submission No. _ and [Proposed] Order Defendant( s) One or more of the parties to this litigation have indicated that they believe that relevant information may exist or be stored in electronic format, and that this content is potentially responsive to current or anticipated discovery requests. This Joint Submission and [Proposed] Order (and any subsequent ones) shall be the governing document( s) by which the parties and the Court manage the electronic discovery process in this action. The parties and the Court recognize that this Joint Electronic Discovery Submission No. _and [Proposed] Order is based on facts and circumstances as they are currently known to each party, that the electronic discovery process is iterative, and that additions and modifications to this Submission may become necessary as more information becomes known to the parties. (1) Brief Joint Statement Describing the Action, [e.g., "Putative securities class action pertaining to the restatement of earnings for the period May 1, 2009 to May 30, 2009"]: -18- American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com (a) _ _ _ _ _ _ Less than $100,000 Between $100,000 and $999,999 Between $1,000,000 and $49,999,999 More than $50,000,000 Equitable Relief Other (if so, specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (b) Estimated amount of Defendant(s)' C'ounten:laim/(:rnss-Ciaims: _ _ _ _ _ _ Less than $100,000 Between $100,000 and $999,999 Between $1,000,000 and $49,999,999 More than $50,000,000 Equitable Relief Other (if so, specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (2) Competence. Counsel certify that they are sufficiently knowledgeable in matters relating to their clients' technological systems to discuss competently issues relating to electronic discovery, or have involved someone competent to address these issues on their behalf. Meet and Confer. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), counsel are required to meet and confer regarding certain matters relating to electronic discovery before the Initial Pretrial Conference (the Rule 16 Conference). Counsel hereby certify that they have met and conferred to discuss these issues. (3) Date(s) of parties' meet-and-confer conference(s): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (4) Unresolved Issues: After the meet-and-confer conference(s) taking place on the aforementioned date(s), the following issues remain outstanding and/or require court intervention: _Preservation; _Search and Review;_ Source(s) of Production;_ Form(s) of Production;_ Identification or Logging of Privileged Material; _Inadvertent Production of Privileged Material;_ Cost Allocation; and/or_ Other (if so, specify) . To the extent specific details are needed about one or more issues in dispute, describe briefly below. As set forth below, to date, the parties have addressed the following issues: -19- American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com ( 5) Preservation. (a) The parties have discussed the obligation to pn.·serve potentially relevant eledronkally stored information and a~rct' to the following scope and methods for preservation, includin~ hut not limited to: retention of c!Cl~tronic data and implcmt:ntation of a data preservation plan; identifkation of potentially rdcnmt data: disclosure of the programs and manrH'r ill n llidt tht.· data is mai 11!ai ned; idclllitka 1io11 of eom fHih'r sy"'h:rn (s) uti!in:d: :Hid idenlifkation uf the indi' iduall~i re.,ponsihk for data pn·st·n ation, eh:. Plaintiff(s): Defendant( s): (b) State itu.' extent to which tht' partit's haH' disclosed or have agret'd io disdose lhc dates, contents, and/or recipients of''litigation hold'' n;mmtmit.·atious. -20- American LegalNet, Inc. w