Case 1:17-cv-02692-RBJ Document 5 Filed 11/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Civil Action No. 17–cv–02692–KMT
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`POLYCOM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE AND SETTING
`DEADLINE FOR FILING OF ELECTION CONCERNING CONSENT/NON-CONSENT
`TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`
`This case has been directly assigned to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya pursuant to
`D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(c) allowing the direct assignment of cases to magistrate judges.
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
`
`
`(1)
` The parties shall complete and file the Election Concerning Consent/Non-Consent to
`United States Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction indicating either unanimous consent of the parties or
`that consent has been declined on or before:
`
`
`January 16, 2018.
`
`
`Please note that this date may be earlier or later than the default deadlines contemplated in
`D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(c)(4).
`
`
`
`
`(2) The court shall hold a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) scheduling and planning conference on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 22, 2018, at
`10:00 a.m. (Mountain Time).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02692-RBJ Document 5 Filed 11/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`The conference shall be held in Courtroom C-201, Second Floor, of the Byron Rogers U.S.
`Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. If this date is not convenient for any party1,
`he or she shall file a motion to reschedule the conference to a more convenient time. Please
`remember that anyone seeking entry into the Byron Rogers United States Courthouse will
`be required to show valid photo identification. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B.
`
`Any party who wishes to attend the conference by telephone must file a motion. However,
`telephonic participation will only be allowed by a land line. No cellular, cordless or
`speaker phones will be permitted.
`
`A copy of instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling
`
`order can be downloaded from the Court’s website at
`www.cod.uscourts.gov/CourtOperations/RulesProcedures/Forms.aspx (Scroll down to the bold
`heading “Standardized Order Forms”). For patent cases, a copy of a form scheduling order in a
`patent case can be downloaded from the Court’s website at
`http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/JudicialOfficers/ArticleIMagistrateJudges/HonKathleenMTafoya.a
`spx. Parties shall prepare the appropriate proposed scheduling order in accordance with the
`Court’s form.
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties shall submit their proposed scheduling order, pursuant to District of Colorado
`
`Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures, on or before:
`
`
`5:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) on
`January 16, 2018.
`
`
`Attorneys and/or pro se parties not participating in ECF shall submit their proposed scheduling
`order on paper to the Clerk’s Office. However, if any party in the case is participating in ECF, it
`is the responsibility of that party to submit the proposed scheduling order pursuant to the District
`of Colorado ECF Procedures.
`
`The plaintiff shall notify all parties who have not yet entered an appearance of the date
`
`and time of the scheduling/planning conference, and shall provide a copy of this Order to those
`parties.
`
`
`(3) In preparation for the scheduling/planning conference, the parties are directed to
`confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). The court strongly encourages the parties to
`meet face to face, but should that prove impossible, the parties may meet by telephone
`conference. All parties are jointly responsible for arranging and attending the Rule 26(f)
`meeting.
`
`
`1The term “party” as used in this Order means counsel for any party represented by a lawyer, and
`any pro se party not represented by a lawyer.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02692-RBJ Document 5 Filed 11/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`During the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their
`
`claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, make
`or arrange for the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), and develop their proposed
`scheduling/discovery plan. The parties should also discuss the possibility of informal discovery,
`such as conducting joint interviews with potential witnesses, joint meetings with clients,
`depositions via telephone, or exchanging documents outside of formal discovery.
`
`In those cases in which: (i) the parties’ substantive allegations involve extensive
`
`computer-generated records; (ii) a substantial amount of disclosure or discovery will involve
`information or records in electronic form (i.e., e-mail, word processing, databases); (iii) expert
`witnesses will develop testimony based in large part on computer data and/or modeling; or (iv)
`any party plans to present a substantial amount of evidence in digital form at trial, the parties
`shall confer regarding steps they can take to preserve computer records and data, facilitate
`computer-based discovery and who will pay costs, resolve privilege issues, limit discovery costs
`and delay, and avoid discovery disputes relating to electronic discovery. The parties shall be
`prepared to discuss these issues, as appropriate, in the proposed Scheduling Order and at the
`scheduling and planning conference.
`
`These are the minimum requirements for the Rule 26(f) meeting. The parties are
`
`encouraged to have a comprehensive discussion and are required to approach the meeting
`cooperatively and in good faith. The parties are reminded that the purpose of the Rule 26(f)
`meeting is to expedite the disposition of the action, discourage wasteful pretrial activities, and
`improve the quality of any eventual trial through more thorough preparation. The discussion of
`claims and defenses shall be a substantive, meaningful discussion.
`
`The parties are reminded that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), no discovery shall be
`
`sought prior to the Rule 26(f) meeting.
`
`(4) The parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 26(a)(1). Counsel and parties are reminded that mandatory disclosure requirements
`encompass computer-based evidence which may be used to support claims or defenses.
`Mandatory disclosures must be supplemented by the parties consistent with the requirements of
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Mandatory disclosures and supplementation are not to be filed with the
`Clerk of the Court.
`
`(5) All parties are expected to be familiar with the United States District Court for the
`
`District of Colorado Local Rules of Practice (D.C.COLO.LCivR.). Copies are available from
`Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, or through the
`District Court’s web site: www.cod.uscourts.gov.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02692-RBJ Document 5 Filed 11/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`Dated this 17th day of November, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 83.3 prior to the
`Scheduling/Planning Conference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________
`Kathleen M. Tafoya
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`4
`
`