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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ronald Wolfson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-08258-PCT-GMS

ORDER SETTING RULE 16 CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

 Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Case Management 

Conference is set for February 1, 2018 at 10:45 a.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day 

O’Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-

2151. In preparation for this Case Management Conference, it is hereby ordered as 

follows: 

A. Rule 26(f) Meeting and Case Management Report. 

 The parties are directed to meet and confer at least 10 days before the Case 

Management Conference as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). At this 

meeting the parties shall develop a joint Case Management Report which contains the 

information called for in section B below. 

B. Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project. 

 The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project 

(“MIDP”). The MIDP was approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States and 

has been implemented in this District by General Order 17-08. The MIDP applies to all 

Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

civil cases filed on or after May 1, 2017, other than cases listed in Rule 26(a)(1)(B), 

actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), and cases 

transferred for consolidated administration in this District by the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation. The discovery obligations in the MIDP supersede the disclosures 

required by Rule 26(a)(1) and are framed as court-ordered mandatory initial discovery. 

Unlike initial disclosures required by current Rule 26(a)(1)(A) & (C), the MIDP does not 

allow parties to opt out. Thus, if your case was filed after May 1, 2017, and does not fall 

within one of the exceptions identified above, you must comply with the discovery 

obligation of the MIDP. You should have received a notice regarding the pilot project 

when your case was filed or you were served, and you should already be complying with 

the MIDP. Resources related to the MIDP are available on the Court’s website at 

www.azd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/mandatory-initial-discovery-pilot. 

C. Joint Case Management Report. 

 The parties’ Joint Case Management Report shall contain the following 

information in separately numbered paragraphs. 

 1. The parties who attended the Rule 26(f) meeting and assisted in developing 

the Case Management Report; 

 2. A list of the parties in the case, including any parent corporations or entities 

(for recusal purposes); 

 3. A short statement of the nature of the case (3 pages or less); 

 4. The jurisdictional basis for the case, describing the basis for jurisdiction 

(see the accompanying footnote) and citing specific jurisdictional statutes;1

 

 1If jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the report shall include a 

statement of the citizenship of every party and a description of the amount in dispute. 

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 one of 

their partners or members resides. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c); Indus. Tectonics v. Aero 

Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990); Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market 

Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003). The parties are further reminded that 

the use of fictitious parties (“John Doe” or “ABC Corporation”) “casts no magical spell 

Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/05/17 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

5. Any parties which have not been served and an explanation of why they 

have not been served, and any parties which have been served but have not answered or 

otherwise appeared; 

 6. A statement of whether any party expects to add additional parties to the 

case or otherwise to amend pleadings (the Court will set a deadline at the Case 

Management Conference for joining parties and amending pleadings); 

 7. A listing of contemplated motions and a statement of the issues to be 

decided by these motions (including motions under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, 

704, and 705); 

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

Judge for a settlement conference or trial; 

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

this Court; 

 10. A discussion of any issues relating to preservation, disclosure, or discovery 

of electronically stored information, including the parties’ preservation of electronically 

stored information and the form or forms in which it will be produced (see

Rules 16(b)(3), 26(f)(3)); 

 11. A discussion of any issues relating to claims of privilege or work product 

(see Rules 16(b)(3), 26(f)(3)); 

 12. A discussion of whether an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) is 

warranted in this case; 

 13. A discussion of the parties’ compliance to date with the MIDP, whether any 

issues have arisen under the MIDP, and, if issues have arisen, a description of those 

issues so the Court may resolve them at the Rule 16 conference. If the Rule 26(f) joint 

report raises MIDP issues for the Court to resolve, copies of the parties’ MIDP 

disclosures should be attached to the report. 

 

on a complaint otherwise lacking in diversity jurisdiction.” Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential 

Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1970) (citations omitted). 

Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/05/17 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

 14. A discussion of necessary discovery. This discussion should take into 

account the December 1, 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), and should include: 

 a. The extent, nature, and location of discovery anticipated by the 

parties and why it is proportional to the needs of the case; 

 b. Suggested changes, if any, to the discovery limitations imposed by 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 

 c. The number of hours permitted for each deposition. The parties 

should consider whether a total number of depositions hours should be set in the case, 

such as 30 total hours for Plaintiffs and 30 total hours for Defendants. Such overall time 

limits have the advantage of providing an incentive for each side to be as efficient as 

possible in each deposition, while also allowing parties to allocate time among witnesses 

depending on the importance and complexity of subjects to be covered with the 

witnesses. 

 15. A statement of when the parties served their MIDP discovery responses; 

 16. Proposed specific dates for each of the following (deadlines should fall on 

a Friday unless impracticable): 

 a. A deadline for the completion of fact discovery, which will also be 

the deadline for final supplementation of discovery responses under the MIDP;2

 b. Dates for full and complete expert disclosures under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A)-(C); 

 c. A deadline for completion of all expert depositions; 

 d. A date by which the parties shall have engaged in face-to-face good 

faith settlement talks; 

 e. A deadline for filing dispositive motions. 

 

 2General Order 17-08 should be reviewed carefully. It requires parties to timely 

supplement their MIDP responses as new information is discovered. Parties who fail to 

timely disclose relevant information will be precluded from using it in the case and may 

be subject to other sanctions. Parties who unreasonably postpone disclosure of relevant 

information to the end of the discovery period will also be subject to sanctions. 

Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/05/17 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

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

trial is contested (if the request is contested, briefly set forth the reasons); 

 18. The prospects for settlement, including any request of the Court for 

assistance in settlement efforts; and 

 19. Any other matters that will aid the Court and parties in resolving this case 

in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1. 

 The parties shall jointly file the Case Management Report with the Clerk not less 

than seven days before the Case Management Conference. It is the responsibility of 

Plaintiff(s) to initiate the Rule 26(f) meeting and preparation of the joint Case 

Management Report. Defendant(s) shall promptly and cooperatively participate in the 

Rule 26(f) meeting and assist in preparation of the Case Management Report. 

D. Case Management Order. 

 The Court directs counsel and any unrepresented parties to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16 for the objectives of the Case Management Conference. Counsel who will 

be responsible for trial of the lawsuit for each party, and any party that is not represented 

by counsel, shall appear and participate in the Case Management Conference and shall 

have authority to enter into stipulations regarding all matters that may be discussed. 

A continuance of the Case Management Conference will be granted only for good cause. 

 As a result of the Case Management Conference, the Court will enter a Case 

Management Order. The form of the Court’s standard Case Management Order can be 

found on the Court’s website at www.azd.uscourts.gov under Judges and Courtrooms and 

Orders, Forms and Procedures. The Court fully intends to enforce the deadlines in the 

Case Management Order. The parties should plan their litigation activities accordingly. 

E. Other Matters. 

 The parties are expected to comply fully with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure and to minimize the expense of discovery. The parties should ensure that all 

filings comply with Local Rules of Civil Procedure 7.1 and 7.2. In addition, in all filings, 

Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/05/17 Page 5 of 6
- 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 

citations in support of any assertion in the text shall be included in the text, not in 

footnotes. The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of this order to all counsel of record 

and to any unrepresented parties. 

 Dated this 5th day of December, 2017. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/05/17 Page 6 of 6