1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph Sorge, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Yelp Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-04518-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 16.2 providing for differentiated 

case management, this action, commenced on December 5, 2017, is currently designated 

a standard track case for the purpose of setting a Pretrial Scheduling Conference. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.), a Pretrial Scheduling Conference is set for April 9, 2018, at 

3:00 p.m., Courtroom #505, Fifth Floor, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. 

Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Counsel—which includes self-represented 

parties—are directed to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and General Order 17-08 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 

2017) for the objectives of this conference. COUNSEL WHO WILL BE 

RESPONSIBLE FOR TRIAL OF THE LAWSUIT FOR EACH PARTY SHALL 

PERSONALLY APPEAR AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. At least one of the attorneys for each party attending 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-JJT Document 10 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the conference shall have authority to enter into stipulations and make admissions 

regarding all matters that may be discussed. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties are directed to meet at least 21 days 

before the Pretrial Scheduling Conference, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), to 

discuss each of the following matters: 

1. The possibility of consent to trial before a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), or the use of any alternative dispute resolution 

mechanism, or the referral of this matter to a special master; 

2. Any matters relating to jurisdiction, venue, or joinder of additional parties; 

3. The nature and bases of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for 

prompt settlement or resolution of the case; 

4. A schedule of all pretrial proceedings, including any evidentiary hearings 

pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid.); 

5. Whether any party desires a settlement conference before a judicial officer; 

6. In lieu of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) initial disclosures, arrangements for making 

the mandatory initial discovery responses required by General Order 17-08 within the 

deadlines set in that General Order; 

7. 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; and 

8. Any other matters that counsel believe will help resolve the case in an 

efficient and economical manner. The parties may not opt out of compliance with the 

provisions of General Order 17-08. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Case Management 

Meeting, the parties shall develop a JOINT PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT 

PLAN. This plan shall include individually numbered brief statements concerning: 

1. The nature of the case, setting forth in brief statements (no more than one 

page per side) the factual and legal basis of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses; 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-JJT Document 10 Filed 02/22/18 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2. A list of the elements of proof necessary for each count of the Complaint 

and each affirmative defense. Where the burden of proof shifts, each party shall list the 

elements of proof that party must satisfy to prevail. The list of elements of proof must 

contain citations to relevant legal authority, (i.e., United States statutory or administrative 

law, United States Supreme Court case law, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case law, 

Arizona case law or statutory law, or other authority as required by choice of law rules); 

3. The factual and legal issues genuinely in dispute (no more than one page 

per side), and whether they can be narrowed by stipulation or motion; 

4. The jurisdictional basis of the case, citing specific statutes. If jurisdiction is 

based on diversity of citizenship, a statement of the citizenship of every party and a 

description of the amount in dispute shall be included. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties 

are reminded that (1) a corporation is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and 

the state of its principal place of business, and (2) partnerships and limited liability 

companies are citizens of every state in which their partners or members are citizens. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th 

Cir. 2006); Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). The 

parties are further reminded that the use of fictitious parties (“John Doe” or “ABC 

Corporation”) “casts no magical spell on a complaint otherwise lacking in diversity 

jurisdiction.” Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 

1970); 

5. Parties, if any, that have not been served, as well as parties that have not 

filed an Answer or otherwise appeared, including fictitious parties. Unless counsel can 

otherwise show cause, they shall submit with the Proposed Case Management Plan a 

proposed Order dismissing any party that has not been served, including fictitious parties, 

and a motion for the entry of default against any non-appearing party if the time for 

answering or otherwise appearing has expired. If a party has been served but not 

appeared, Plaintiff(s) or Counterclaimant(s) shall provide a copy of this Order to that 

party; 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-JJT Document 10 Filed 02/22/18 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6. The names of parties not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction; 

7. Whether there are dispositive or partially dispositive issues to be decided 

by pretrial motions, and the legal issues about which any pretrial motions are 

contemplated; 

8. Whether the case is suitable for reference to a United States Magistrate 

Judge or a special master; 

9. The status of related cases pending before other judges of this Court or 

before other courts; 

10. A description of the parties’ discussions of the mandatory initial discovery 

responses, including any disputes. See General Order 17-08 at 4 ¶ 9; 

11. Proposed deadlines (month/day/year)1

 for: 

(a) filing motions to amend the Complaint or to join additional parties; 

(b) if a patent case, exchange of patent claim constructions and filing of 

claim construction opening brief, response, and reply; 

(c) completion of all fact discovery; 

(d) disclosure of expert testimony by Plaintiff(s) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2); 

(e) disclosure of expert testimony by Defendant(s) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2); 

(f) disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony; 

(g) disclosure of all witnesses, exhibits and other matters under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(a)(3); 

(h) closure of all discovery; 

(i) completing good faith discussions of settlement; and 

(j) filing dispositive motions, including Daubert motions;

2

 

1

 The Court prefers to set deadlines for Fridays. 

2

 Evidentiary motions made under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 

579 (1993). 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-JJT Document 10 Filed 02/22/18 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12. The scope of discovery, including any suggested changes in the limitations 

on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and whether discovery 

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

For example, where dispositive motions will be filed (e.g., motions for summary 

judgment on a statute of limitations defense), counsel should consider limiting discovery 

to the issue at hand until the Court has ruled on the motion; 

13. Estimated length of trial, and any suggestions for shortening the trial; 

14. Whether a jury trial has been requested and whether the request for a jury 

trial is contested. If the request for a jury trial is contested, the Proposed Case 

Management Plan shall set forth the reasons that a trial by jury is in dispute; 

15. The prospects for settlement, including any request to have a settlement 

conference before another United States District Judge or a Magistrate Judge, or any 

other request of the Court for assistance in settlement efforts; 

16. In class actions, the proposed dates for class certification proceedings and 

other class management issues. Such certification will result in the case being reassigned 

to the complex track for case management purposes (see LRCiv 16.2); 

17. Whether any unusual, difficult, or complex problems or issues exist that 

require this case to be placed on the complex track for case management purposes (see 

LRCiv 16.2); and 

18. Any other matters that counsel believe will aid the Court in resolving this 

case in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner. However, the parties may not opt out of 

compliance with the provisions of General Order 17-08. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall jointly file their Proposed Case 

Management Plan with the Clerk of the Court (e-file the Plan using the “Other 

Documents” category and selecting the drop-down event “Report re: Rule 26(f) Planning 

Meeting”) not less than SEVEN (7) DAYS before the Pretrial Scheduling Conference. 

No extensions of time will be granted. 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-JJT Document 10 Filed 02/22/18 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that it is the responsibility of counsel for 

Plaintiff(s) to initiate the communications necessary to prepare the Joint Proposed Case 

Management Plan. Once contacted by counsel for Plaintiff(s), counsel for Defendant(s) 

shall act in an expeditious manner to effect the preparation of the Proposed Case 

Management Plan. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for all parties are expected to comply 

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and General Order 17-08 and to minimize the expense of 

discovery. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel must be prepared to discuss what the 

parties must prove in order to prevail on their respective claims or defenses at the time of 

the Pretrial Scheduling Conference and to discuss logistical matters. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court, after consultation with counsel and 

the parties, will enter a Rule 16 Scheduling Order concerning, inter alia, discovery and 

dispositive motion cutoffs. To the extent that the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order 

differs from the parties’ Joint Proposed Case Management Plan, the provisions of the 

Court’s Order shall supersede the Proposed Case Management Plan and shall control the 

course of this action unless modified by subsequent Order of the Court. The parties and 

their counsel are all cautioned that the deadlines set in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order shall 

be strictly enforced. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must comply with the requirements 

of the Civil Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona (the “Local Rules”), including LRCiv 7.1 and LRCiv 7.2 pertaining to filing 

pleadings and motions, as well as the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual—

all of which can be found on the Court’s website, www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel shall, 

as applicable, review these requirements with their administrative/support personnel to 

ensure that all filings are in compliance with these Rules. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court views the Pretrial Scheduling 

Conference as critical to its case management responsibilities and the responsibilities of 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-JJT Document 10 Filed 02/22/18 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EVERY 

PROVISION OF THIS ORDER MAY LEAD TO SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO 

FED. R. CIV. P. 16(f).

 Dated this 22nd day of February, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-JJT Document 10 Filed 02/22/18 Page 7 of 7