1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MEGATEL HOMES LLC et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CRYSTAL LAGOONS US CORP et 

al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1715-X

SCHEDULING ORDER

The Court has considered the Parties’ Joint Proposal for Contents of 

Scheduling and Discovery Order [Doc. No. 17], and it sets the following schedule for 

this case’s disposition.1 

1. The jury trial is scheduled on this Court’s two-week docket beginning April 17, 

2024 at 9:00 AM. 

2. A Pretrial Conference is scheduled for April 10, 2024.

3. Counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by January 18, 2023.

4. Motions for leave to join other parties shall be filed by January 9, 2023.

5. Motions for leave to amend pleadings shall be filed by January 9, 2023.

6. The party with the burden of proof on a claim shall file a designation of expert 

witnesses and comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by March 19, 2023.

7. Rebuttal designation of expert witnesses and compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2) shall be made by April 18, 2023.

8. Counsel shall confer and file a joint report informing the Court of their choice 

of a mediator or their inability to agree upon a mediator by February 2, 2023. 

1

 Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Parties must observe the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and the local rules of this Court. 

Case 3:22-cv-01715-X Document 18 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 189
2

At that time, the Court will issue a mediation order, discussing the guidelines 

and requirements of the mediation. 

9. All discovery procedures shall be initiated in time to complete discovery by

November 17, 2023.2 

10. The parties shall mediate their case by December 1, 2023.

11. Counsel shall confer and file a joint report setting forth the status of settlement 

negotiations by December 8, 2023.

12. All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by December 15, 2023.3

13. All challenges to experts—including motions to strike or exclude expert 

witnesses—shall be filed by December 15, 2023.

14. The Court “heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial 

record” and discourages such requests.4 The parties may agree between 

themselves to designate documents “confidential” during discovery. The 

typical standard there involves the parties assessing whether they want that 

material in the public domain. But filing that material with the Court under 

seal is a different matter altogether. Court proceedings are, by and large, 

public matters (and rightfully so given that tax dollars fund the courts and we 

have this wonderful protection called the First Amendment).5 

2

 The parties generally may agree to extend this discovery deadline, provided that the 

extension does not affect any subsequent deadlines and the parties notify the Court in writing. The 

Court retains the right to reject an agreed extension.

3

 Counsel should review carefully Local Rule 56.2(b), which limits to one the number of 

summary judgment motions that a party may file “[u]nless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, 

or permitted by law.”

4 June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519–20 (5th Cir. 2022).

5

 “The public’s right of access to judicial records is a fundamental element of the rule of 

law. . . . Article III courts are independent, and it is particularly because they are independent that 

the access presumption is so vital—it gives the federal judiciary a measure of accountability, in turn 

giving the public confidence in the administration of justice.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 

F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “The rationale for public access is even greater” in cases 

that “involve matters of particularly public interest.” June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520 (cleaned up); 

see also SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Public access [to judicial records] 

serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the 

public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its 

fairness.” (quoting Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 682 (3d Cir. 1998))); Brown & Williamson 

Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983) (the First Amendment and the common 

law limit the court’s discretion to seal records). 

Case 3:22-cv-01715-X Document 18 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 190
3

A party seeking to file a specific document under seal6 must move for leave to 

do so and: (1) identify precisely what information (pages, lines, etc.) the party 

wants sealed; (2) conduct a line-by-line, page-by-page analysis7 explaining and 

briefing why the risks of disclosure outweigh the public’s right to know; and 

(3) explain why no other viable alternative to sealing exists.8 Further, all facts 

recited in any such motion must be verified by the oath or declaration of a 

person or persons with personal knowledge, which will assist the Court in 

making fact findings that can withstand appellate scrutiny.9 

The Court recognizes that typically the party seeking to seal documents may 

not possess personal knowledge of the facts to be included in a motion for leave 

to file under seal. In these instances, the parties should either prepare joint 

motions for leave to file documents under seal (and the party with personal 

knowledge verifies the facts in the section on justification) or the parties should 

make separate filings.

15. Counsel shall file by April 3, 2024 a Joint Pretrial Order containing the 

information required by Local Rule 16.4 plus the following:

a. A list of witnesses who may be called by each party in its case in chief. 

Each such witness list shall contain a narrative summary of the 

6

 Parties should not seek to file under seal any information that is already publicly available. 

June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520 (“We require information that would normally be private to become 

public by entering the judicial record. How perverse it would be to say that what was once public must 

become private—simply because it was placed in the courts that belong to the public. We will abide 

no such absurdity.” (cleaned up)).

7 Trans Tool, LLC v. All State Gear Inc., No. SA-19-CV-1304-JKP, 2022 WL 608945, at *6 (W.D. 

Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) (“[I]t is certainly within a court’s discretion to summarily deny a request to seal 

when it is apparent that the submitter has not conducted its own document-by-document, line-by-line 

review.”).

8 Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Family Planning & Preventative Health Servs., Inc. v. 

Kaufman, No. 17-50534, Doc. 00514098372, at 2 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2017) (“This court disfavors the 

sealing of briefs or portions of the record where the parties on appeal have not articulated a legal basis 

for the sealing.”). The Fifth Circuit has “repeatedly required parties to justify keeping materials under 

seal.” Id.; see, e.g., Claimant ID 100236236 v. BP Expl. & Prod’n, Inc., No. 16-30521 (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 

2017) (requesting letter briefs sua sponte as to whether appeal should remain under seal and entering 

order unsealing appeal); United States v. Quintanilla, No.16-50677 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2016) (order 

authorizing briefs and record excerpts to be filed under seal on condition that the parties filed redacted 

briefs and record excerpts on the public docket). Also, the parties should note that a showing that 

disclosure of the information sought to be sealed would harm a party’s reputation or its business is not 

sufficient to overcome the strong common law presumption in favor of public access. Brown, 710 F.2d 

at 1179.

9 See United States v. Edwards, 823 F.2d 111, 119 (5th Cir. 1987) (if closure of a presumptively 

open proceeding is to withstand a First Amendment challenge, the court must make specific fact 

findings that substantial probability exists that an interest of a higher value will be prejudiced and 

that no reasonable alternatives will adequately protect that interest).

Case 3:22-cv-01715-X Document 18 Filed 12/19/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 191
4

testimony to be elicited from each witness, shall state whether the 

witness has been deposed, and whether the witness’s testimony at trial 

is “probable,” “possible,” “expert,” or “record custodian.” A copy of this 

list must be furnished to the court reporter prior to trial;

b. A joint proposed jury charge. The parties must submit the proposed 

charge to the Court in Word format. The parties must annotate the joint 

proposed charge, explaining any objections and including citations to 

pattern jury instructions or caselaw. 

c. Proposed interrogatories 

d. The status of settlement negotiations as of the date of the Pretrial Order; 

e. Each party’s proposed voir dire questions if the matter is a jury trial. 

The Court will allow attorneys an allotted time to conduct questioning 

at voir dire so long as the questions are approved in advance by the 

Court. The Court reserves the right to conduct further questioning at 

the conclusion of attorney questioning; and

f. Trial briefs may be filed with the Pretrial Order but are not required 

unless specifically requested by the Court.

16. Regarding exhibit lists, exhibits, witness lists, and deposition designations, the 

parties shall comply with Local Rule 26.2 by April 3, 2024. This includes 

providing copies of your trial exhibits to the Court on a USB flash drive or by 

email at Starr_Orders@txnd.uscourts.gov.10 Deposition designations should 

be made for only those witnesses who qualify as “unavailable” for trial under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4). The parties should brief the Court on 

why a given witness counts as unavailable under Rule 32. Deposition 

designations should not be made for witnesses who will testify live.

17. Motions in limine shall be filed by April 3, 2024. The parties must file 

responses to the motions in limine by April 6, 2024.

18. Objections to witnesses (except expert witnesses), exhibits, and deposition 

designations shall be filed by April 6, 2024. Counsel must confer about exhibits 

and make reasonable efforts to agree upon admissibility. 

19. Objections to the interrogatories shall be filed by April 6, 2024.

20. The parties must confer and file, by April 6, 2024 at 5:00 PM, a joint status 

10 The Court will not accept original exhibits prior to trial. Original exhibits are retained by 

counsel and are admitted into the official record during trial. It is counsel’s duty to care for the original 

exhibits before and after trial. At the end of trial, the Court will return the original exhibits to counsel 

and counsel will sign a Receipt of Exhibits. The Court will file the Receipt of Exhibits with the District 

Clerk. It is counsel’s responsibility to forward any exhibits to the Court of Appeals should the case be 

appealed. All questions regarding exhibits are to be directed to the court reporter.

Case 3:22-cv-01715-X Document 18 Filed 12/19/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 192
5

report on pretrial objections to exhibits, witnesses (except expert witnesses), 

and deposition designations. 

I. Exhibits, Depositions, and Witnesses

The Court expects that the parties will reach agreements resolving those 

evidentiary issues that are governed by well-settled and clearly established 

law. The report should then list the objections that the parties maintain. 

Objections must be explained in writing, similar to what would occur in a 

sidebar conference. Merely citing to a rule number is not sufficient. 

a. Exhibits: Counsel must confer about exhibits and make reasonable efforts 

to agree upon admissibility. The Court will only admit into evidence 

exhibits the parties offer at trial.11 For each exhibit objected to, the report 

shall list the exhibit number, a concise, non-argumentative description of 

the exhibit, the concise written basis for the objection with a citation to 

relevant authority, and a concise written response to the objection with a 

citation to the relevant authority.

b. Depositions: For each witness the plaintiff will present by deposition (i.e.

not a live witness), counsel must designate excerpts by page and line. The 

plaintiff must include an opposing party’s counter-designations, 

chronologically interspersed throughout a single, joint designation form for 

each witness. Each designated excerpt should note the party making the 

designation, whether there is an objection, the concise written basis for the 

objection with a citation to relevant authority, and a concise written 

response to the objection with a citation to relevant authority. The 

defendant must complete the same process for witnesses to be presented by 

deposition in the defendant’s case-in-chief only. The parties must attach 

the full deposition at issue for each witness.

c. Witnesses: The report shall include a concise, non-argumentative 

statement summarizing the witness and his/her connection to the facts. 

The party making an objection to the witness’s testimony must then make 

a concise explanation of the objection with a citation to relevant authority. 

The party presenting the witness must then make a concise response to the 

objection with a citation to relevant authority. The Court highly disfavors 

arguments about excluding the entirety of fact witness testimony.

11 This does not mean the parties cannot bring into evidence a document not admitted in 

conjunction with a witness. The parties may agree to the admissibility of certain exhibits that are 

never discussed with a witness and ask the Court to admit them into evidence at the close of that 

party’s case and be sent with the jury for deliberation. Or evidence brought in through a proper records 

custodian by affidavit may qualify to go back to the jury room. But the Court is not inclined to admit 

into evidence en masse exhibits only tangentially connected to the case actually presented to the jury.

Case 3:22-cv-01715-X Document 18 Filed 12/19/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 193
6

The status report should organize the objections in table format, according to the 

examples below: 

Exhibit Number Concise nonargumentative 

description of 

Exhibit

Objection with 

concise 

explanation and 

authority.

Response with 

concise 

explanation and 

authority.

Deposition 

Designation 

with Page and 

Line Numbers

Counterdesignation (if 

applicable) 

with Page and 

Line Numbers

Excerpt 

Objected to 

with Page and 

Line Numbers

Objection with 

concise 

explanation 

and authority.

Response with 

concise 

explanation 

and authority.

Witness Concise nonargumentative 

summary of 

witness and 

connection to 

facts

Concise nonargumentative 

identification 

of what aspect 

of the 

Witness’s 

testimony is 

objected to

Objection with 

concise 

explanation 

and authority.

Response with 

concise 

explanation 

and authority.

21. The Court will view with disfavor and will deny—absent a showing of good 

cause—requests for extensions of these deadlines.

22. At the pretrial conference, the Court will determine the order in which the 

cases on its two-week docket will be tried. Counsel and the Parties shall be 

ready for trial on 48-hours’ notice at any time during the docket period.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2022. 

___________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01715-X Document 18 Filed 12/19/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 194