1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHN MONTESANTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAIR MORTGAGE LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-688-X

ORDER REQUIRING ATTORNEY CONFERENCE

AND PROPOSAL FOR CONTENTS OF

SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and the Court’s Civil Justice 

Expense and Delay Reduction Plan, the Court enters this order to promote possible 

early settlement of this action and to facilitate subsequent entry of a Scheduling and 

Discovery Order.

I.

Lead counsel for each party (or a designee attorney with appropriate authority) 

shall personally meet at a mutually agreeable location at least 14 days before the 

date specified in Section VII of this order.1 Counsel shall determine in good faith 

whether this case can be settled before additional expenses are incurred. 

II.

If the case does not settle, counsel shall submit a Joint Proposal in the format 

1

 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)(1)–(2).

Case 3:22-cv-00688-X Document 12 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 32
2

provided that contains the following items. The format for the Joint Proposal 

can be found at the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Texas website under Judges > Judge Brantley Starr > Standard Forms.2 

The parties shall submit the Joint Proposal in the format provided. 

1. A proposed time limit to file motions for leave to join other parties and 

to amend the pleadings;

2. Proposed time limits to file various types of motions;

3. A proposed plan and schedule for discovery, including a time limit to 

complete discovery;

4. A proposal for limitations, if any, to be placed upon discovery;

5. A proposed time limit to designate expert witnesses;

6. A proposed trial date, estimated number of days required for trial, and 

whether a jury has been demanded;

7. A proposed date for commencing settlement negotiations;

8. Whether the parties will consent to trial (jury or non-jury) before a 

United States Magistrate Judge;3

9. Whether the parties are considering mediation or arbitration to resolve 

2

 http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-brantley-starr

3

 Before responding to this question, counsels are directed to carefully review the provisions of 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and, specifically, section 636(c)(3).

Case 3:22-cv-00688-X Document 12 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 33
3

this litigation, and if not then why not;4

10. Any other proposals regarding scheduling and discovery and that the 

parties believe will facilitate expeditious and orderly preparation for 

trial, including the parties’ positions on a consolidated discovery 

schedule; and

11. Any other matters relevant to the status and disposition of this case.

III.

Lead counsel for plaintiff is responsible for initiating contact with opposing 

counsel for the purpose of preparing the Proposal. But lead counsel for all parties are 

equally responsible for seeing that this order is complied with in a timely manner. At 

least one counsel for each party shall sign the Proposal prior to filing.

IV.

If counsel cannot agree on a recommendation, the Proposal shall set forth each 

party’s respective recommendation and shall state why agreement could not be 

reached.

V.

Because the Court is to enter a Scheduling Order “as soon as practicable, but 

unless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier 

of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after 

4

 The Court encourages the early use of mediation or arbitration.

Case 3:22-cv-00688-X Document 12 Filed 05/16/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 34
4

any defendant has appeared,”5 the Court will review with disfavor requests for 

extensions of time to file the Proposal and will deny them absent a showing of good 

cause.

VI.

Unless the Court sets or a party requests a scheduling conference, the 

Scheduling and Discovery Order will be issued following the Court’s review of the 

Proposal. Once the Scheduling Order has been issued, the Court will review with 

disfavor requests for extensions of the Scheduling Order’s deadlines and will deny 

them absent a showing of good cause.

VII.

The Proposal shall be filed on or before June 23, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2022.

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

 FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(2).

Case 3:22-cv-00688-X Document 12 Filed 05/16/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 35