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 

Michelle Begay, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00099-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a telephonic Pretrial 

Scheduling Conference is set for May 22, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., before Esther SanchezGomez, law clerk to the Honorable Rosemary Márquez, at (520) 205-4624. The 

conference shall be initiated by Plaintiff, with all appropriate parties on the line. In 

preparation for this Scheduling Conference, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 The parties are directed to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the 

objectives of the conference. At least one of the attorneys for each party attending the 

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

all matters which may be discussed. 

 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 parties are directed to 

carefully review General Order 17-08. The MIDP applies to all civil cases filed on or 

Case 4:18-cv-00099-RM Document 17 Filed 05/04/18 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 

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) and (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 obligations 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. 

 The parties are directed to confer at least 12 days before the Pretrial Scheduling 

Conference, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), to discuss the following matters: 

A. The possibility of consent to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct 

any or all proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the suitability for 

referral of this matter for alternative dispute resolution, or the referral of 

this matter to a special master; 

B. Any matters relating to jurisdiction, venue, or the joinder of additional 

parties; 

C. The nature and bases of the parties’ claims and defenses and the 

possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case; 

D. A schedule of all pre-trial proceedings; 

E. Modification of pre-trial procedures based on the simplicity or complexity 

of the case; 

F. The parties’ compliance to date with the MIDP and whether any issues 

have arisen with the MIDP; 

G. Development of a proposed discovery plan, including 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 

Case 4:18-cv-00099-RM Document 17 Filed 05/04/18 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 

focused upon particular issues; and 

H. Any other matters which counsel may feel will help dispose of the matter in 

an efficient manner. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall file with the Court, on or before 

May 18, 2018, a Joint Report reflecting the results of their meeting and outlining their 

discovery plan. It is the responsibility of Plaintiff’s counsel to initiate the communication 

necessary to prepare the Joint Report. Willful failure to comply may result in the 

imposition of sanctions. The report shall include brief, individually numbered statements 

indicating: 

1. The nature of the case, setting forth in brief statements the factual and legal 

bases for Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses, and the relief sought; 

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 prove in order to prevail. 

The list of the elements of proof must contain citations to relevant legal 

authority (i.e., United States statutory and/or administrative law, United 

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

State of Arizona case law and statutory law, or other authority as dictated 

by the conflicts of law rules); 

3. The factual and legal issues genuinely in dispute and whether they can be 

narrowed by stipulation or motion; 

4. The jurisdictional basis for the case, citing specific jurisdictional statutes, 

and whether jurisdiction is disputed; 

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

not filed an answer or other appearance. Unless counsel can otherwise 

show cause, the joint report shall be accompanied by a stipulation and a 

form of order dismissing any party which has not been served, or a motion 

seeking default on any non-appearing party; 

Case 4:18-cv-00099-RM Document 17 Filed 05/04/18 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 

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 pre-trial motions, and the legal issues about which any pretrial motions 

are contemplated; 

8. Whether the parties anticipate filing cross-motions for summary judgment 

and, if so, whether it is feasible to adopt an abbreviated briefing schedule 

consisting of: (1) a motion, (2) a response / cross-motion, (3) a response to 

cross-motion / reply and (4) a reply to cross-motion. If an abbreviated 

briefing schedule is feasible, the parties should propose page limitations 

and filing deadlines for each brief; 

9. Whether the case is suitable for reference to arbitration, to a special master, 

or to a United States Magistrate Judge; 

10.The status of related cases pending before other judges of this court or 

before other courts and whether it is appropriate for any matters to be 

consolidated pursuant to Rule 42.1(a) of the Local Rules of Practice of the 

United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“LRCiv”); 

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

12.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; 

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 

14.The scope, nature, and location of discovery anticipated by the parties, 

including when discovery should be completed and whether discovery 

should be conducted in phases or should be limited to or focused upon 

particular issues; 

15.A discussion of any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of 

electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it 

Case 4:18-cv-00099-RM Document 17 Filed 05/04/18 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 

should be produced; 

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

17.What evidentiary hearings, such as Daubert hearings, will be required and 

when such hearings shall be held; 

18.The estimated date that the case will be ready for trial, the estimated length 

of trial, and any suggestions for shortening the trial; 

19.Whether a jury trial has been requested, whether the request for jury trial is 

contested, and, if the request is contested, the reasons that a trial by jury is 

in dispute; 

20.The prospects for settlement, including whether the parties wish to have a 

settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge and whether the parties 

seek the Court’s assistance in facilitating settlement in any other way; 

21.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 

pursuant to LRCiv. 16.2; 

22.Any unusual, difficult, or complex problems affecting the conduct of the 

case or which would require the case to be placed on the complex track for 

case management purposes pursuant to LRCiv. 16.2; 

23.Any other matters which counsel feel will aid the Court in resolving this 

dispute in a just, expeditious, and efficient manner; and 

24.Proposed deadlines for: 

a. Addition of parties or amending pleadings; 

b. Disclosure of expert testimony and rebuttal expert testimony 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2); 

c. Discovery (if the parties believe that discovery will require more 

than 180 days, counsel must provide an explanation showing why, in 

Case 4:18-cv-00099-RM Document 17 Filed 05/04/18 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 

the instant case, a lengthier period for discovery is necessary);1

d. Filing dispositive motions; 

e. Filing settlement status reports; 

f. Filing the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order; 

 After the conference, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order limiting the time 

within which counsel may file pre-trial motions, complete discovery, and file the 

proposed pre-trial order. To the extent that the Court’s Scheduling Order differs from the 

parties’ proposed schedule, the provisions of the Court’s Order shall supersede the 

parties’ proposed schedule and shall control the course of the action unless modified by 

subsequent Order. The parties and their counsel are cautioned that the deadlines set in 

the Court’s Scheduling Order shall be strictly enforced and may be modified only for 

good cause. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties are expected to comply with Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26, and to minimize the expense of discovery. Counsel should ensure that all 

documents filed with the Court comply with LRCiv. 7.1 and 7.2. Failure to comply with 

the provisions of this Order may lead to sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). 

 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2018. 

 1

 The deadline for completion of discovery will also be the deadline for final 

supplementation of discovery responses under the MIDP. General Order 17-08 requires parties to timely supplement their MIDP responses as new information is received. 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 4:18-cv-00099-RM Document 17 Filed 05/04/18 Page 6 of 6