Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Barbara Allen, Richard Dippold, Melvin Jones, Donald McCarty, Richard Scates and Walter G. West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, and Plan Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Defendants. No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS

SECOND REVISED PROPOSED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER

All parties shall comply with the deadlines established in this Order. A. All proceedings concerning this case shall be in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. B. In light of the Court's September 7, 2006 decision granting Plaintiffs'

motion for class certification, the parties shall supplement their initial disclosures within 30 days of the date of this order with information learned as of that date. Additionally, the

25 26 27 28

parties shall supplement their disclosures thereafter in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 258-2

Filed 12/01/2006

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

C.

Procedural motions including Motions to Amend the Complaint or Answer,

and Motions to Join Additional Parties shall be filed no later than December 11, 2006. All Motions to Amend shall attach a copy of the proposed complaint or answer. D. [Contrary to Defendants' statements below, Plaintiffs assert that the Court

has already certified the classes and that the class claims and issues are already clearly defined in the Court's order dated September 7, 2006 in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B). (Doc. 226.) Plaintiffs propose that Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court for approval a proposed form of notice to the class on or before December 8, 2006. Plaintiffs' counsel shall confer with Defendants' counsel on the terms of the proposed notice in advance of submission. If the parties are unable to agree on the proposed order and notice, Defendants shall submit a response to Plaintiffs' proposal no later than December 22, 2006.] [Defendants propose that Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed order defining the class, the class claims, issues, or defenses, and appointing class counsel pursuant to FRCP 23(c)(1)(B), and a proposed form of class notice pursuant to FRCP 23(c)(2)(B) no later than December 1, 2006. Plaintiffs' counsel shall confer with Defendants' counsel on the terms of proposed order and notice in advance of submission. If the parties are unable to agree on the proposed order and notice, Defendants shall submit a response to Plaintiffs'

22 23 24

proposal no later than December 15, 2006]. E. Plaintiffs shall disclose the identity of all persons who may be used at trial

25 26 27 28 2 Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 258-2 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 2 of 7

to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 701, 702, 703, 704, and 705 no later than [Plaintiffs propose February 15, 2007; Defendants propose July 6, 2007].

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Defendants shall disclose the identity of all persons who may be used at trial to present evidence under FRE 701, 702, 703, 704, or 705 no later than [Plaintiffs propose March 15, 2007; Defendants propose August 5, 2007]. No deposition of any expert witness shall occur before the disclosure concerning that expert witness, mandated by this Order, has been made. The disclosures of the identities of all persons who may be used at trial to present evidence under FRE 701, 702, 703, 704, or 705 shall also include all of the disclosures required by FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) if the witness is either (1) retained or specifically employed to provide expert testimony in the case, or (2) is an agent or employee of the party offering the testimony whose duties regularly involve giving expert testimony.1 F. All discovery, including answers to interrogatories, production of

documents, depositions and requests to admit shall be completed by [Plaintiffs propose May 30, 2007; Defendants propose August 15, 2007]. G. The parties shall finally supplement all discovery, including material

changes to expert witness opinions and material disclosures, pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(3),

1

The parties are on notice that this Order requires disclosures different than that required by FRCP 26(a)(2).
3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 258-2

Filed 12/01/2006

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of all exhibits to be used and all witnesses to be called at trial, on or before [Plaintiffs propose October 1, 2007, Defendants propose October 1, 2007].2 H. Discovery by interrogatory shall be governed by the national uniform

requirements set forth in FRCP 33. [Defendants request that this order be entered without prejudice to any requests by Defendants for leave to take discovery from class members] I. Depositions shall be limited by the national uniform requirements set forth

in Rules 30, 31, and 32 of the FRCP. [Defendants request that this order be entered without prejudice to any requests by Defendants for leave to take discovery from class members] J. Motions on discovery matters are strongly discouraged. Parties are directed

to Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 7.2(j), which prohibits filing discovery motions unless parties have first met to resolve any discovery difficulties. If the parties cannot reach a resolution, they are directed to jointly arrange with the Court a conference call to resolve the matter orally in court in lieu of filing a formal motion. Once the call is made, the Court will provide further directions concerning preparations for the conference call.

2

The parties are on notice that this order supersedes the "30 days before trial" disclosure deadline contained in FRCP 26(a)(3). Therefore, failure to timely supplement pursuant to Rule 26(e), including attempts to include witnesses and exhibits in the Proposed Final Pretrial Order or at trial that were not previously disclosed in a timely manner may result in the exclusion of such evidence at trial or the imposition of other sanctions including dismissal and the imposition of default pursuant to FRCP 37, the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the District Court, and the inherent power of the Court.
4

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 258-2

Filed 12/01/2006

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

K.

This Order contemplates that each party will conduct discovery to permit

completion within the deadline. Any discovery which results in insufficient time to undertake necessary additional discovery and which requires an extension of the discovery deadline will be met with disfavor, will only be granted for good cause or only to prevent manifest injustice pursuant to FRCP 16(b) and (e), and may result in denial of an extension, exclusion of evidence, or the imposition of other serious sanctions pursuant to FRCP 37(b), (c), (d). L. All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than [Plaintiffs propose June

30, 2007, or if later, 30 days after the close of discovery; Defendants propose September 1, 2007]. Unless permitted by Order of the Court, only one dispositive motion is allowed to be filed by each party. [Plaintiffs propose that they be allowed leave to file an additional dispositive motion; Defendants propose that, in order to facilitate the prompt and efficient adjudication or settlement of this lawsuit, any party may seek leave of Court to submit a separate motion or brief that would dispose of a significant issue or clarify the legal standards applicable to this case, including but not limited to remedies.] M. All parties are specifically admonished that pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i), "[i]f a

motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails to appear at the time and place for oral argument, such

25 26 27 28 5 Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 258-2 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 5 of 7

non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

N.

The parties shall keep the Court apprised of settlement negotiations and the

progress of discovery to the extent consistent with the non-jury status of this case. A joint letter to the Court concerning the status of settlement discussions (containing no specific settlement terms or offers) and the progress of discovery shall be submitted by [Plaintiffs propose January 15, 2007; Defendants propose February 15, 2007] and initially labeled "FIRST NOTICE OF DISCOVERY AND SETTLEMENT," and shall be subsequently submitted every FOUR (4) months thereafter. If settlement is reached the parties shall file a Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the Court with a copy to Judge Silver's Chambers. O. A Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, all Motions in Limine and a Joint

Statement of the Case shall be lodged and filed by [Plaintiffs propose August 1, 2007. If dispositive motions have been filed, the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and Motions in Limine and other pretrial documents shall be due either on the above date or 30 days following resolution of the dispositive motions, whichever is later. Defendants propose 60 days after the Court's ruling on any pending dispositive motions]. The content of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is that prescribed in the Court's form of Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. [See Court's website: www.azd.uscourts.gov under "Judges and

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 258-2 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 6 of 7

Courtrooms/Orders, Forms & Procedures"]. Responses to Motions in Limine are due 15 days after the Motions are filed, and no Replies are permitted unless specifically ordered by the Court.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

P.

Because the case will be tried to the Court, rather than to a jury, in addition

to filing a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, each party shall file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the same date the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is due. Q. The attorneys who will be trying the case for each of the parties shall appear

at the Final Pretrial Conference, that will be scheduled as promptly as possible after the filing of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. The attorneys appearing at the conferences shall be prepared to address the merits of all issues raised in the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and fully briefed Motions in Limine. Unless one has already been established, the Court will set a firm trial date at the Pretrial Conference, and will sign the Final Pretrial Order with any additional instructions for trial preparation. R. Any other final pretrial matters required pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(3) are due

in accordance with this Order prior to the preparation and filing of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. This Court views compliance with the provisions of this Order as critical to its case management responsibilities and the responsibilities of the parties under FRCP 1.

7 Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 258-2 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 7 of 7