IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRANDON CRIDER, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2415-D

§

EUGENIA FOUST, §

§

Defendant. §

Scheduling Proposal Due Date: January 10, 2023

ORDER

This order is entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 26(f) and the court’s Civil Justice 

Expense and Delay Reduction Plan (the “Plan”) to facilitate entry of a scheduling order under Rule 

16(b). The order also contains preliminary information intended to help the parties comply with 

the applicable rules and procedures. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local civil rules 

in effect on the date of this order, together with amendments to these rules that take effect while 

the case is pending, apply to this case.

I. ELECTRONIC FILING OPTIONAL

A party may file pleadings, motions, or other papers on paper. Filing by electronic means 

is permitted, not required. See N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 5.1(e).

II. “JUDGE’S COPY” NOT REQUIRED

The parties are excused from submitting the “judge’s copy” of a pleading, motion, or other 

paper required by N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 5.1(b). The court will specifically request a judge’s copy if 

one is needed.

III. INITIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

AND OBJECTION PROCEDURE

The initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) apply to this case unless Rule 

26(a)(1)(B) exempts disclosure or the parties stipulate otherwise. If, during the Rule 26(f) 

conference process, a party objects that initial disclosures are not appropriate and states the 

objection in the scheduling proposal, see Rule 26(a)(1)(C), the party must file a separate letter with 

the proposal that alerts the court to the fact that the objection has been made.

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 8 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 77
– 2 –

IV. RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE

No later than seven days before the scheduling proposal due date, lead counsel for each 

party (or a designee attorney with appropriate authority) must meet in person at a mutually 

agreeable location, and confer on the matters specified in Rule 26(f)(2) and this order. Under Rule 

26(f)(2) “[t]he court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person.” The 

court rarely excuses the attorneys from the requirement that they meet “in person,” and it never 

does so unless a party obtains advance approval. The requirement of an in-person meeting does 

not apply, however, if one or more parties are proceeding pro se. In that instance, the Rule 26(f) 

conference may be conducted telephonically, by mail, or by other means that will accomplish the 

conference requirement.

V. CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING PROPOSAL

If the case is not settled or otherwise resolved before the scheduling proposal due date, the 

parties must submit a joint proposal that contains the matters set out in this section. Because of 

the deadline in Rule 16(b)(2) for issuing a scheduling order, a request for an extension of the 

scheduling proposal due date must be supported by good cause.

If the parties disagree about a particular proposal, they must provide their respective 

recommendations and explain their disagreement. The parties must not submit a proposal in the 

form of a proposed order; the court enters its own order. Unless a scheduling conference is set, 

the court will enter a scheduling order after reviewing the joint proposal. If a party fails to 

participate in the proposal process, the court will enter a scheduling order without that party’s 

proposals.

Required Contents. 

The proposal must contain:

1. proposed deadlines for limiting the time to (a) join other parties; (b) amend the 

pleadings; (c) file motions, including summary judgment and other dispositive 

motions; (d) complete discovery; and (e) designate expert witnesses and rebuttal expert 

witnesses and make the expert disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2);

2. the parties’ views and proposals on the matters listed in Rule 26(f)(3)(A)-(F);

3. under a separate heading, a statement about whether all the parties consent to referring 

this case to a magistrate judge for jury or nonjury trial, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) 

(unless all parties consent, the proposal need not identify the parties who do not 

consent); and

4. under a separate heading, a statement about whether and when it is advisable to refer 

the case for alternative dispute resolution (see Plan § III) or to conduct a courtsupervised settlement conference.

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 8 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 78
– 3 –

Permitted Contents.

The proposal may contain: 

(a) proposed modifications of the timing of disclosures under Rule 26(a) and Rule 

26(e)(1); (b) proposed modifications of the extent of discovery otherwise permitted 

under the Rules; (c) proposals for disclosure, discovery, or preservation of 

electronically stored information; (d) any agreements the parties have reached for 

asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material after 

information is produced, including agreements reached under Fed. R. Evid. 502; (e) a 

proposed procedure for requiring that, before moving for an order relating to discovery, 

the movant must request a conference with the magistrate or district judge; (f) proposed 

dates for pretrial conferences, a final pretrial conference, and trial; and (g) proposals 

pertaining to any other appropriate matters.

VI. LOCAL COUNSEL REQUIREMENT

Unless a party is proceeding pro se, an attorney is exempt under N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 83.11, 

or at least one attorney appearing for a party resides or maintains an office in this district, local 

counsel is required in this case. See N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 83.10(a). Motions for leave to proceed 

without local counsel must be supported by a showing of good cause, and, if an opposing party 

has appeared in this case, be accompanied by a certificate of conference that complies with N.D. 

Tex. Civ. R. 7.1(b).

VII. AVAILABLE HELP DESKS

Case information can be obtained from the clerk of court by contacting the ECF Help Desk 

at (214)753-2633.

An attorney, attorney’s staff member, or party proceeding pro se can also obtain answers 

to frequently asked questions, or submit case-specific questions to chambers staff, using Judge 

Fitzwater’s Chambers Online Help Desk, found at the following Internet address: 

http://cf.txnd.uscourts.gov/www2/forms/saf_email.cfm.

SO ORDERED. 

December 13, 2022.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

SENIOR JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02415-D Document 8 Filed 12/13/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 79