Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 39
`Case 1:14-cv—02758—PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 39
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`____________________________________________________________ _-X
`
`USDC SONY
`DOCUMENT
`
`ELECTRONlCALLY FILED
`
`ggggfi? ’
`i’
`.
`4
`‘- 0' —‘—l4-LU-L—__
`
`In re: Pilot Project Regarding Case Management
`
`:
`
`STANDING ORDER
`
`Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the
`
`:
`
`M 1 0—468
`
`Southern District ofNew York
`
`: 1
`
`___________________________________________________________ "X
`
`1.
`
`This case is hereby designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project Regarding Case
`
`Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District ofNew York (the
`
`"Pilot Project“), unless the judge to whom this case is assigned determines otherwise.
`
`2.
`
`This case is designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project because it is a class
`
`action, an MDL action, or is in one of the following Nature ot‘Suit categories: 160, 245, 315,
`
`355, 365, 385, 410, 830, 840, 850, 893, or 950.
`
`3.
`
`The presiding judge in a case that does not otherwise qualify for inclusion in the
`
`Pilot Project may nevertheless designate the case for inclusion in the Pilot Project by issuing an
`
`order directing that the case be included in the Pilot Project.
`
`4.
`
`The description of the Pilot Project, including procedures to be followed, is
`
`attached to this Order.
`
`SO ORDERED:
`
`
`
`ilif'éiia "iiréé'ka
`
`Chief United States District Judge
`
`Dated: October 3/
`
`, 201 1
`
`New York, New York
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 2 of 39
`
`REPORT OF THE
`JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE
`
`PILOT PROJECT REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT
`TECHNIQUES FOR COMPLEX CIVIL CASES
`
`October 2011
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 3 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Preface ................................................................................................................................. ii 
`
`JIC Advisory Committee Roster ........................................................................................ iii 
`
`Subcommittee Rosters ....................................................................................................... iv 
`
`Initial Pretrial Conference Procedures .................................................................................1 
`
`Discovery Procedures ..........................................................................................................4 
`
`Motion Procedures ...............................................................................................................8 
`
`Final Pretrial Conference Procedures ................................................................................10 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibits:
`
`A. Initial Pretrial Conference Checklist
`
`B. Joint Electronic Discovery Submission
`
`C. Order of Reference to a Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`30
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 4 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PREFACE
`
`Beginning in early 2011, the Judicial Improvements Committee of the Southern
`
`District of New York (“JIC”),1 chaired by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, began to consider a pilot
`
`project to improve the quality of judicial case management. The impetus for this project was
`
`the “Duke Conference” sponsored by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil
`
`Rules. Judge John G. Koeltl, a member of the Advisory Committee, was Chair of the Planning
`
`Committee for the Duke Conference. The JIC decided to focus on complex cases and to
`
`develop procedures that would be implemented by the judges of the Court for an eighteen-
`
`month trial period. To assist in this effort the Chair of the JIC appointed an Advisory
`
`Committee of experienced attorneys, representing a broad diversity of the bar to develop
`
`proposals. The Advisory Committee, joined by members of the JIC, formed four
`
`subcommittees to consider and recommend best practices for the management of complex civil
`
`cases. Each of the four subcommittees submitted a report to the JIC which was adopted in
`
`substance by the JIC. The JIC then presented its proposal to the Board of Judges. On
`
`September 28, the Board of Judges approved the proposal, albeit with some suggestions for
`
`implementing the final version of the pilot project. The following report is the pilot project
`
`that the Court has adopted. It will take effect on November 1, 2011. The Court is deeply
`
`grateful to all of the JIC Members and Advisory Committee members who worked so hard to
`
`bring this project to fruition.
`
`
`
`1
`The members of the Judicial Improvements Committee include: Judge Denise Cote, Judge Thomas
`Griesa, Judge Kenneth Karas, Judge John Koeltl, Judge Victor Marrero, Judge Shira Scheindlin, Judge
`Sidney Stein, Judge Robert Sweet, Judge James Cott, Judge Theodore Katz, Judge Henry Pitman and Judge
`Lisa Smith.
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 5 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROSTER
`
`Samuel F. Abernethy
`Menaker & Herrmann LLP
`
`James Batson
`Liddle & Robinson, LLP
`
`Steven Bennett
`Jones Day
`
`James Bernard
`Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
`
`John Boston
`Legal Aid Society
`
`Vince (Vernon) Broderick
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`
`Susanna Buergel
`Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
`
`Dale Cendali
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`
`Melanie Cyganowski
`Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, P.C.
`
`Maura Grossman
`Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
`
`Gregory Joseph
`Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices LLC
`
`Gregg Kanter
`Sprague & Sprague
`
`Marilyn Kunstler
`Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 6 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mei Lin Kwan-Gett
`Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
`
`Sara Moss
`Estee Lauder
`
`Tai Park
`Park & Jensen LLP
`
`Jon Pines
`Deputy Chief, General Litigation Division of NY City Law Department
`
`Debra Raskin
`Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C.
`
`Theodore O. Rogers, Jr.
`Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
`
`Scott Rosenberg
`Legal Aid Society, General Counsel
`
`Susan Saltzstein
`Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
`
`Paul Saunders
`Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
`
`Andrew Schilling
`Chief of the Civil Division, US Attorneys Office, SDNY
`
`Lorna Schofield
`Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
`
`Amy Schulman
`Pfizer Corporation
`
`Penny Shane
`Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 7 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kent Stauffer
`Executive Deputy Attorney General
`Guy Miller Struve
`Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
`
`Steve Susman
`Susman Godfrey LLP
`
`Ariana Tadler
`Milberg, LLP
`
`Mary Kay Vyskocil
`Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP
`
`Peter Wang
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 8 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUBCOMMITTEE ROSTERS
`
`Initial Pretrial Case Management Subcommittee
`
`Co-Chairs:
`
`Amy Schulman, Paul Saunders
`
`Committee Members:
`
`Judge John Koeltl, Judge Sidney Stein, Judge Henry Pitman, John Boston, Marilyn
`Kunstler, Sara Moss, Andrew Schilling, Penny Shane, Kent Stauffer, Sam Abernethy
`
`Also participating:
`
`Judge Shira Scheindlin
`
`
`
`Discovery Subcommittee
`
`Co-Chairs:
`
`Greg Joseph, Debra Raskin
`
`Committee Members:
`
`Judge Thomas Griesa, Judge James Cott, Judge Lisa Smith, Jim Batson, Steven Bennett,
`Mei Lin Kwan-Gett, Maura Grossman, Jon Pines, Theodore Rogers, Scott Rosenberg,
`Kent Stauffer, Ariana Tadler
`
`Also participating:
`
`Judge Shira Scheindlin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 9 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motions Subcommittee
`
`Co Chairs:
`
`Susan Saltzstein, James Bernard
`
`Committee Members:
`
`Judge Victor Marrero, Judge Robert Sweet, Gregg Kanter, Tai Park, Guy Struve, Dale
`Cendali, Susanna Buergel, Melanie Cyganowski, Lorna Schofield
`
`Also participating:
`
`Judge Shira Scheindlin
`
`
`
`Final Pretrial Conference Subcommittee
`
`Co-Chairs:
`
`Steve Susman, Mary Kay Vyskocil
`
`Committee Members:
`
`Judge Denise Cote, Judge Kenneth Karas, Judge Theodore Katz, Vernon Broderick, Peter
`Wang, Guy Struve, Andrew Schilling, Paul Saunders
`
`Also participating:
`
`Judge Shira Scheindlin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 10 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` I. Initial Pretrial Case Management Procedures
`
`A.
`
`Initial Report of Parties before Pretrial Conference. No later than 7
`
`days before the initial pretrial conference, the parties shall file an Initial Report
`that includes the following:
`
`1.
`
`The parties’ positions on the applicable topics of the “Initial Pretrial
`Conference Checklist” (see Exhibit A, annexed hereto) including
`whether initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) should be made in
`whole or in part and whether there is some readily identifiable document
`or category of documents that should be produced immediately in lieu of
`initial disclosures.
`
`2.
`
`The parties’ proposed schedule for fact and expert discovery including:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Any recommendations for limiting the production of documents,
`including electronically stored information.
`
`.Any recommendations for limiting depositions, whether by
`numbers or days of depositions,2 and by the elimination of expert
`depositions.
`
`A protocol and schedule for electronic discovery, including a
`brief description of any disputes regarding the scope of electronic
`discovery.
`
`Whether the parties recommend that expert discovery precede or
`follow any summary judgment practice.
`
`Whether the parties agree to allow depositions preceding trial of
`trial witnesses not already deposed.
`
`3.
`
`Whether the parties propose to engage in settlement discussions or
`mediation and, if so, when would be the best time to do so. The parties
`should also identify what discovery should precede such discussions.
`
`B.
`
`Pretrial Conference Procedures. The Court shall make its best effort to hold
`an in-person, initial pretrial conference within 45 days of service on any
`defendant of the complaint. If the Government is a defendant, the Court shall
`make its best effort to schedule the initial conference within 60 days of service.
`If a motion to dismiss is pending, the Court may consider postponing the initial
`pretrial conference until the motion is decided.
`
`2
`Note: In some complex cases the parties have limited depositions by agreeing on a maximum
`number of days a party may depose witnesses. The party may use those days to take two half-day or one
`full-day deposition per witness.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 11 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Lead counsel for each party must attend.
`
`The Court should address the contents of the Initial Report and the
`applicable topics contained in the “Initial Pretrial Conference Checklist”
`(see attached Exhibit A) with the parties.
`
`The parties shall provide the Court with a concise overview of the
`essential issues in the case and the importance of discovery in resolving
`those issues so that the Court can make a proportionality assessment and
`limit the scope of discovery as it deems appropriate. The Court may
`also wish to consider the possibility of phased or staged discovery.
`
`The Court should consider setting a deadline for any amendments to the
`pleadings and joinder of additional parties.
`
`The Court should set a schedule for the completion of fact discovery, the
`filing of the Joint Preliminary Trial Report, the Case Management
`Conference (see Final Pretrial Conference Procedures), and the
`exchange of expert reports. If appropriate, the Court should also
`consider setting dates for the filing of dispositive motions and the filing
`of the Joint Final Trial Report.
`
`If appropriate, the Court should set a trial-ready date or a trial date
`contingent on the resolution of dispositive motions.
`
`If appropriate, the Court should schedule any motion for class
`certification and associated discovery.
`
`The Court should consider setting a maximum limit for any adjournment
`requests, both as to length and number, whether or not the parties jointly
`request an adjournment.
`
`If the parties agree, the Court should confirm that prior to trial the
`parties will be permitted to depose any trial witnesses who were not
`deposed prior to the filing of the Joint Final Pretrial Report. If the
`parties cannot agree on this procedure, the Court should consider
`whether to issue such an order.
`
`10.
`
`The District Judge shall advise the parties if it will be referring the case
`to a Magistrate Judge and, if so, for what purposes. If the District Judge
`makes such a referral for the purpose of pretrial supervision (as opposed
`to settlement or the disposition of dispositive motions), the District
`Judge and the Magistrate Judge are encouraged to communicate and
`coordinate regarding the pretrial progress of the case.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 12 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`The Court shall determine whether and when additional pretrial
`conferences should be held to address the issues raised in items 4
`through 8 above.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 13 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` II. Discovery Procedures
`
`A. Stay of Certain Discovery upon Service of Dispositive Motion. Unless the
`Court orders otherwise, following service of a motion to dismiss pursuant to
`Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) (if made immediately after the filing of an answer) of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery of documents, electronically stored
`information and tangible things may proceed pursuant to Rule 34 but all other
`discovery with respect to any claim that is the subject of the motion is stayed
`pending the Court’s decision on the motion.
`
`B. Discovery Disputes Not Involving Assertion of Privilege or Work Product.
`Unless the Court determines otherwise, any discovery dispute — other than a
`dispute arising in the course of a deposition or involving invocation of a
`privilege or work product protection — will be submitted to the Court by letter
`as follows:
`
`1. The movant will submit to the Court, in a manner permitted by the
`Judge’s Individual Practices, and to opposing counsel by hand delivery,
`fax or email, a letter of not more than 3 single-spaced pages setting forth
`its position and certifying that the movant has in good faith conferred or
`attempted to confer with the party or person failing to make discovery in
`an effort to obtain it without court action. All disputes that the movant
`intends to raise at that time must be submitted in a single letter.
`
`2. The responding party or person may submit a responsive letter of no
`more than 3 single-spaced pages within 3 business days with a copy to
`opposing counsel.
`
`3. If the Court permits a reply, it should not exceed 2 single-spaced pages
`and should be submitted within 2 business days of the responding letter.
`
`4. The Court will make its best effort to render a decision no later than
`fourteen days from its receipt of the final letter. The Court may resolve
`the dispute prior to its receipt of the responsive letter if it has otherwise
`provided the person or party an opportunity to be heard.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 14 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. In Camera Sampling of Assertions of Privilege. A party or person who raises
`a question as to the assertion of a privilege or work product protection with
`respect to documents (including electronically stored information) may request
`a ruling from the Court as follows:
`
`1. The requesting party or person will submit to the Court, in a manner
`permitted by the Judge’s Individual Practices, and to opposing counsel
`by hand delivery, fax or email, a letter of not more than 3 single-
`spaced pages (a) setting forth its position, (b) certifying that it has in
`good faith conferred with the opposing party or person in an effort to
`resolve the issues without court action, and (c) indicating whether
`there is consent to in camera inspection.
`
`2. If the requestor is the party or person invoking privilege or work
`product protection, it may attach to its letter to the Court no more than
`5 representative documents that are the subject of its request.
`The documents are to be attached only to the copy of the letter directed
`to the Court, for in camera review, and not to the copy of the letter
`directed to the opposing party or person.
`
`3. Any opposing party or person may submit a responsive letter of no
`more than 3 single-spaced pages within 3 business days with a copy to
`opposing counsel.
`
`4. If the Court permits a reply, it should not exceed 2 single-spaced pages
`and should be submitted within 2 business days of the responding
`letter.
`
`5. Unless the Court requires a more extensive submission, within
`fourteen days from its receipt of the responsive letter or, if later, its
`receipt of the documents, the Court will make its best effort to
`determine whether the submitted documents must be produced. The
`Court may issue its decision prior to its receipt of the responsive letter
`if it has otherwise provided any opposing party or person an
`opportunity to be heard.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 15 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Documents Presumptively Not to Be Logged on Privilege Log. The
`following documents presumptively need not be included on a privilege log:
`
`1. Communications exclusively between a party and its trial counsel.
`
`2. .Work product created by trial counsel, or by an agent of trial counsel
`other than a party, after commencement of the action.3
`
`3. Internal communications within (a) a law firm, (b) a legal assistance
`organization, (c) a governmental law office or (d) a legal department of a
`corporation or of another organization.
`
`4. .In a patent infringement action, documents authored by trial counsel for
`an alleged infringer even if the infringer is relying on the opinion of
`other counsel to defend a claim of willful infringement.4
`
`E. Privilege Log Descriptions of Email Threads. For purposes of creation of a
`privilege log, a party need include only one entry on the log to identify withheld
`emails that constitute an uninterrupted dialogue between or among individuals;
`provided, however, that disclosure must be made that the e-mails are part of an
`uninterrupted dialogue. Moreover, the beginning and ending dates and times (as
`noted on the emails) of the dialogue and the number of emails within the
`dialogue must be disclosed, in addition to other requisite privilege log
`disclosure, including the names of all of the recipients of the communications.
`
`3
`See D. Conn. Local Rule 26(e) (“This rule requires preparation of a privilege log
`
`with respect to all documents *** except the following: *** the work product material
`created after commencement of the action”). D. Colo. Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(c), S.D. Fla.
`Local Rules Gen Rule 26.1(g)(3)(C), E.D. Okla. Local Rule 26.2(b), and N.D. Okla.
`Local Rule 26.2(b) are substantively identical D. Conn. Local Rule 26(e). Note that this
`proposal is more limited than these local rules because it does not exempt from logging
`documents created by the client at counsel’s suggestion, to avoid abuse.
`4
`See In re Seagate Tech., 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc) (reliance on
`
`opinion of counsel does not waive the privilege or work product protection of trial
`counsel on the same subject matter); N.D. Cal. Local Patent Rule 3-7(c) (“Serve a
`privilege log identifying any other documents, except those authored by counsel acting
`solely as trial counsel, relating to the subject matter of the advice which the party is
`withholding on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or work product protection.”).
`D.N.J. Local Patent Rule 3.8(c), E.D. Mo. Local Patent Rule 3-9(c), W.D. Wash. Local
`Patent Rule 140, S.D. Tex. Patent Rule 3-8, E.D. Tex. L. Patent Rule 3-7(b), D. Idaho L.
`Patent Rule 3.8, S.D. Cal. Local Patent Rule 3.8(b) and other local patent rules are
`substantively identical to N.D. Cal. Local Patent Rule 3-7(c).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 16 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`F. Requests for Admission. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the Court,
`a party may serve on any other party no more than 50 requests for admission
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(1)(A); no such request for
`admission may exceed 25 words in length; except that no limit is imposed on
`requests for admission made pursuant to Rule 36(a)(1)(B) relating to the
`genuineness of any described documents.
`
`G. Subpoenaed Material. Unless the Court orders otherwise, whenever
`documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things are obtained in
`response to a subpoena issued pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the party responsible for issuing and serving the subpoena shall
`promptly produce them to, or make them available for inspection and copying
`by, all parties to the action.
`
`H. Joint Electronic Discovery Submission. A joint electronic discovery
`submission and proposed Order is annexed as Exhibit B. Among other things, it
`includes a checklist of electronic discovery issues to be addressed at the Rule
`26(f) conference.
`
`I. Revised Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge. A revised form of Order of
`Reference to Magistrate Judge is annexed as Exhibit C. Among other things, it
`provides that in the case of urgent discovery disputes — e.g., in mid-deposition
`— litigants may approach the assigned Magistrate Judge when the District
`Judge is unavailable.
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 17 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
` Motion Procedures
`
`Pre-Motion Conferences.
`
`1. Pre-motion conferences should be held for all motions except motions
`for reconsideration, motions for a new trial, and motions in limine. For
`discovery disputes, see the procedures set forth at Part II. B, supra.
`
`2. A party intending to file a motion governed by the preceding paragraph
`(other than Rule 12(b) motions) must request by letter no longer than 3
`single-spaced pages, a pre-motion conference in advance of filing any
`such motion. The moving party’s letter shall be submitted at least
`7 business days prior to a proposed or scheduled conference date, or at
`any time if no such date has been proposed or scheduled. Within 3
`business days of receipt of the letter, each opposing party may submit a
`written response of no more than 3 single-spaced pages in length. No
`further letters will be accepted by the Court. The Court will, as soon as
`possible thereafter, hold the pre-motion conference.
`
`
` 3. The filing of a pre-motion letter shall automatically stay the time by
`which the motion must be made. In the event the law imposes a filing
`deadline, the requirement of a pre-motion letter and conference will not
`apply, unless the Court extends the deadline for filing a motion.
`
`
` 4. Motions pursuant to Rule 12(b) are subject to a different procedure. The
`Court may consider one of the following options: (a) Not requiring a
`pre-motion conference; (b) requiring the parties to exchange letters (with
`or without a copy to the court) prior to filing a motion to dismiss,
`addressing any deficiencies in the complaint, in the hope that such
`deficiencies might be cured by the filing of an amended complaint; or
`(c) holding a conference after the motion is made at which the plaintiff
`will be given an opportunity to either amend the complaint or oppose the
`motion. If plaintiff does not choose to amend, the plaintiff shall be
`given no further opportunity to amend the complaint to address the
`issues raised by the pending motion. In the event there is no
`amendment, the Court will determine whether any discovery shall
`proceed during the pendency of the motion. The time for opposing the
`Rule 12(b) motion will be stayed until the conference, at which time the
`Court will schedule the further briefing of the motion.
`
`
`B. Page Length for Motions. No memorandum of law in support of or in
`opposition to a motion may exceed 25 pages (double-spaced). Any
`memorandum in excess of 10 double-spaced pages shall also include a table of
`contents and table of authorities. Reply memoranda may not exceed 10 pages.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 18 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any party may request additional pages by seeking leave of the Court after
`having sought the consent of the adverse party or parties.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Oral Argument. Oral arguments should be held where practicable and in the
`Court’s view useful, on all substantive motions, unless the parties agree
`otherwise. Five calendar days in advance of oral argument, the Court should
`consider notifying the parties of those issues of particular concern.
`
`56.1 Statements (Statement of Material Fact). At the request of the parties,
`and if approved by the Court, no Local Rule 56.1 Statement shall be filed in
`connection with motions made pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure. If the Court requires that the parties file Rule 56.1 statements, such
`statements shall not exceed 20 pages per party.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 19 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IV. Final Pretrial Conference Procedures
`
`A.
`
`Joint Preliminary Trial Report on Close of Fact Discovery. Within 14 days
`after the completion of fact discovery, the parties shall file a Joint Preliminary
`Trial Report, unless the Court concludes that such a report is not necessary in a
`particular case, which shall include the following:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The full caption of the action.
`
`The name, address, telephone number, fax number and email
`address of each principal member of the trial team, and an
`identification of each party’s lead trial counsel.
`
`A brief statement identifying the basis for subject matter
`jurisdiction, and, if that jurisdiction is disputed, the reasons
`therefore.
`
`A list of each claim and defense that will be tried and a list of
`any claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings that are not to
`be tried.
`
`An identification of the governing law for each claim and
`defense that will be tried and a brief description of any dispute
`regarding choice of law.
`
`The number of days currently estimated for trial and whether the
`case is to be tried with or without a jury.
`
`A statement indicating whether all parties have consented to trial
`by a magistrate judge, without identifying which parties do or do
`not consent.
`
`A brief description of any summary judgment motion a party
`intends to file, including a statement identifying whether expert
`testimony will be offered in support of the motion.
`
`B.
`
`Case Management Conference Procedure. Within 14 days of the filing of the
`Joint Preliminary Trial Report, the Court should make its best effort to hold a
`Case Management Conference to discuss the contents of the Joint Preliminary
`Trial Report and to finalize the schedule for the remainder of the litigation.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
` Lead trial counsel for each party must attend.
`
`The parties should be prepared to discuss the substance of any
`summary judgment motion any party intends to file. During the
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 20 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conference, the Court will determine whether any existing
`schedule should be modified, including whether the period for
`summary judgment motions will precede or follow expert
`disclosures and discovery.
`
`3.
`
` If it has not already done so, the Court should set a schedule for
`expert disclosures and discovery, the briefing of any summary
`judgment motions, the briefing of any Daubert motions, the date
`for the filing of the Joint Final Trial Report and a firm trial date.
`
`a. In the event summary judgment motions will be filed, the
`Court should consider providing the parties with its best
`estimate of the date by which it expects to render a
`decision on the motions and should advise the parties
`whether there will be a further opportunity for settlement
`discussions or mediation following the decision. The
`date that the Court selects during the Case Management
`Conference for the filing of the Joint Final Trial Report
`shall be no earlier than 28 days following the Court’s
`decision on the summary judgment motions. Similarly,
`the firm trial date set by the Court at the Case
`Management Conference shall be no earlier than 8 weeks
`following the Court’s decision on summary judgment
`motions.
`
`4.
`
` The Court shall encourage (and, in appropriate cases, may order)
`the parties to participate in settlement discussions or mediation
`before a forum and by a date chosen by the Court based on its
`consultations with the parties during the conference. Such
`settlement discussions or mediation efforts shall not stay the
`schedule for the completion of the litigation.
`
`C.
`
`Joint Final Trial Report. On the date set at the Case Management Conference,
`but in any event not later than 28 days preceding the date set for the
`commencement of the trial, the parties shall file a Joint Final Trial Report,
`unless the Court concludes that such a report is not necessary in a particular
`case, which shall include the following:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
` In the event that there has been a ruling on summary judgment
`motions, a list of any claims and defenses from the Joint
`Preliminary Trial Report that the parties had intended to try but
`that they will no longer try.
`
` A list by each party of its trial witnesses that it, in good faith,
`presently expects to present. The list shall indicate whether the
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 04/17/14 Page 21 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`witness will testify in person or by deposition, and the general
`subject matter areas of the witness’s testimony. In the event that
`any such witness has not been deposed, and provided the Court
`has previously approved (see Initial Pretrial Case Management
`Procedures at 2 ¶ 9), the witness will be made available for
`deposition before the commencement of trial. The parties will
`also provide an agreement as to how and when they will give
`notice to each other of the order of their trial witnesses.
`
` A list by each party of exhibits that it, in good faith, presently
`expects to offer in its case in chief, together with any specific
`objections thereto other than on grounds of relevancy. Any
`objection not included on this list will be deemed waived, other
`than for good cause shown. Prior to filing the Joint Final Trial
`Report the parties will meet and confer in order to eliminate or
`narrow disputes about the admissibility of exhibits, to agree upon
`exhibits that can be utilized during opening statements at the
`trial, and to facilitate the filing of any in limine motions.
`
` In the case of bench trials, the parties’ recommendation on
`whether the direct testimony of fact and expert witnesses who
`testify in person at trial will be submitted by affidavit to the
`Court in advance of trial.
`
` The parties’ recommendation on the time limits for the length of
`the trial, and, if appropriate, the division of time between or
`among the parties and the protocol for tracking the time.
`
` All stipulations or statements of fact or law on which the parties
`have agreed and which will be offered at trial shall be appended
`to the Joint Final Trial Report as exhibits.
`
` An agreed schedule by which the parties will exchange
`deposition designations and counter-designations, notify each
`other of objections to such designations, consult with each other
`regarding those objections, and notify the Court of any remaining
`disputes. In any event, the parties must notify the Court of any
`remaining dispute no later than 48 hours before the deposition
`testimony is offered at trial.
`
` An agreed schedule by which the parties will exchange all
`demonstratives not otherwise listed in Paragraph C.3 that the
`parties intend to use at trial during opening statements or
`otherwise, notify each other of any objections thereto, consult
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 4 Filed 0