Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Kevin Rapp, Margaret Perlmeter, and Reginald Jones Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, present and released Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr. and Erin McCampbell Paris (telephonic), Retained Defendant-2: James Larkin, present and released Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Whitney Bernstein, Retained Defendant-3: Scott Spear, present and released Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained Defendant-4: John Brunst, present and released Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg and Gopi Panchapakesan (telephonic), Retained Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, present and released Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, not present and released (presence waived) Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment (telephonic)

Other than the conflicts stated on the record by Mr. Beinert and Mr. Lincenberg, Defendants do not object to the new schedule.

The parties are directed to review the prior juror questionnaires and submit changes, if any, to the Court by not later than October 12, 2021.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Hearing re: Juror Questionnaires on January 31, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. to be held via ZOOM.

Court Reporter Christine Coaly Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia SH: 22 mins Start: 11:02 AM Stop: 11:24 AM

There will be a conference to address the means to achieve the five goals set forth in Rule 16(a), Fed. R. Civ.

P. The Court intends to limit and constrain, among other things, the “comprehensive electronic and paper discovery,” which the parties envision in their letter of September 20, 2021 in view of the proportionality and other considerations set forth in Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ.

P. In that regard, the circumstance that there were 95 depositions and approximately 200,000 pages of documents in the federal civil rights action should streamline discovery in this action, not prolong it as the letter to the Court suggests.

Allowing free-wheeling discovery coupled with periodic pretrial conferences is no way to manage a case.

The answer is achieving a common understanding at the outset and then holding the parties to limitations set by the Court.