Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1555 DATE 3/8/2012

CASE

TITLE

Automated Facilities vs. Computer Power Software

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

A status hearing is set for April 24, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

(Reserved for use by the Court)

ORDER

 This order is being entered shortly after the filing of the Complaint. Counsel for plaintiff(s) are ordered to cause a copy

of this order to be delivered forthwith to each defendant in the same manner that process has been or is being served on such

defendant.

 There will be a status hearing--a “scheduling conference”, as that term is used in attached Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 16(b),

at 9:00 a.m. on April 24, 2012 (the “Status Hearing Date”). Counsel for plaintiff(s) and for each defendant that has been

served with process or has appeared at least 28 days before that Status Hearing Date are ordered to meet not later than 14

days before the Status Hearing Date to comply with the provisions of attached Rules 26(f) and 26(a)( c) and this District

Court’s LR 26.1 (also attached). Counsel for the parties are urged to undertake serious settlement efforts before the

scheduled Status Hearing when no major investment in counsel’s time (and clients’ money) has yet taken place. If such

efforts are unsuccessful, counsel should be prepared to attend the scheduled Status Hearing prepared to discuss briefly their

proposed discovery plan and other subjects appropriate for inclusion in the scheduling order as referred to in Rule 16(b).

 Although this Court will not set a close-of-discovery scheduling order until both sides have a good sense of the time

needed for that purpose, the parties are urged to join in setting their own target dates in that respect at their initial Rule 26(f)

conference and to review those target dates regularly during the discovery process. Special attention must be given to the

December 1, 2006 amendments to Rules 26(f), 26(a)(1), 34 and 45 that deal with electronically stored information (ESI)

and that establish obligations for both lawyers and clients, and to the impact of the Rule 26 amendments on the scope of

discovery under other provisions of Rule 26 (see Rules 26(a)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(5)). Counsel should also become familiar

with the helpful Committee Notes dealing with the 2006 amendments.

 If any party is unrepresented by counsel, that party must comply with this order personally. Counsel’s attention is

specifically called to this Court’s directive attached to LR 26.1.

 

 

12C1555 Automated Facilities vs. Computer Power Software Page 1 of 6

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 12 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:18
STATEMENT

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 16. Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

(b) Scheduling and Planning. Except in categories of actions exempted by district court rule as inappropriate, the 

district judge, or a magistrate judge when authorized by district court rule, shall, after receiving the report from the parties under Rule 26(f) or after

consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties by a scheduling conference, telephone, mail, or other suitable means, enter

a scheduling order that limits the time

(1) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings;

(2) to file motions; and

(3) to complete discovery.

The scheduling order may also include

(4) modifications of the times for disclosures under Rules 26(a) and 26(e)(1) and of the extent of discovery to 

be permitted;

(5) provisions for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information;

(6) any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation 

 material after production;

(7) the date or dates for conferences before trial, a final pre-trial conference, and trial; and

(8) any other matters appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The order shall issue as soon as practicable but in any event within 90 days after the appearance of a defendant and within 120 days after the complaint

has been served on a defendant. A schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge or, when

authorized by local rule, by a magistrate judge.

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure

(f) Conference of Parties; Planning for Discovery. Except in categories of proceedings exempted from initial

disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(E) or when otherwise ordered, the parties must, as soon as practicable and in any event at least 21 days before a

scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b), confer to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and

the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), to discuss any issues

relating to preserving discoverable information, and to develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the parties’ views and proposals concerning:

(1) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), 

 including a statement as to when disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) were made or will be made:

(2) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether 

 discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused upon particular issues;

(3) any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or 

 forms in which it should be produced;

(4) any issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, including – if the

 parties agree on a procedure to assert such claims after production – whether to ask the court to include

 their agreement in an order;

(5) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule,

 and what other limitations should be imposed; and

(6) any other orders that should be entered by the court under Rule 26© or under Rule 16(b) and ©.

The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting

in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining

the plan. A court may order that the parties or attorneys attend the conference in person. If necessary to comply with its expedited schedule for Rule

16(b) conferences, a court may by local rule (I) require that the conference between the parties occur fewer than 21 days before the scheduling

conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b), and (ii) require that the written report outlining the discovery plan be filed fewer

than 14 days after the conference between the parties, or excuse the parties from submitting a written report and permit them to report orally on their

discovery plan at the Rule 16(b) conference.

12C1555 Automated Facilities vs. Computer Power Software Page 2 of 6

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 12 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:19
STATEMENT

LOCAL RULE 26.2 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Rule 26(f) Meeting. Rule 26(f) meetings may be conducted by telephone. Unless otherwise ordered by the court

(1) parties need not present a written report outlining the discovery plan at the preliminary pretrial conference,

and (2) the initial status hearing shall be the scheduling conference referred to in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).

[NOTE: Judge Shadur expressly directs that no written report, as referred to in LR 26.1(I), be filed before or at

the Status Hearing Date referred to in his initial memorandum order. As that order reflects, that subject will be

discussed briefly at the Status Hearing Date.]

12C1555 Automated Facilities vs. Computer Power Software Page 3 of 6

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 12 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:20
STATEMENT

12C1555 Automated Facilities vs. Computer Power Software Page 4 of 6

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 12 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:21
STATEMENT

12C1555 Automated Facilities vs. Computer Power Software Page 5 of 6

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 12 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:22
12C1555 Automated Facilities vs. Computer Power Software Page 6 of 6

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 12 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:23