1

The term “party” as used in this Order means counsel for any party represented by a

lawyer, and any pro se party not represented by a lawyer.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01752-REB-CBS

JOHN J. BEDLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation,

Defendant.

AMENDED ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING

The above captioned case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer by District Judge

Robert E. Blackburn, pursuant to the Order of Reference filed July 8, 2011. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A)

and (B) and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a) and (b).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) The court shall hold a FED.R.CIV.P. 16(b)scheduling and planning conference on

September 20, 2011, at

10:00 a.m. (Mountain Time)

The conference shall be held in Courtroom A-402, Fourth Floor, of the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse,

901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. If this date is not convenient for any party1

, he or she shall confer with

opposing parties and contact the court to reschedule the conference to a more convenient time. Please

remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse will be

required to show valid photo identification. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B.

A copy of instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can

be downloaded from the “Forms” section on the Court’s website

(http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx) under the heading “Standardized Order Forms.” 

Case 1:11-cv-01752-REB-CBS Document 10 Filed 08/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

In accordance with D.C.COLO.ECF. PROC. 5.12, the parties shall file their proposed scheduling

order and also email an editable version to Shaffer_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov no later than:

Seven (7) days prior to the date of

the scheduling conference

(2) In preparation for the scheduling/planning conference, the parties are directed to confer in

accordance with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(f), no later than: 

Twenty-one (21) days prior to the

date of the scheduling conference

The court strongly encourages the parties to meet face to face, but should that prove impossible, the parties

may meet by telephone conference. All parties are jointly responsible for arranging and attending the Rule

26(f) meeting.

During the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and

defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, make or arrange for the

disclosures required by FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(1), and develop their proposed scheduling/discovery plan. The

parties should also discuss the possibility of informal discovery, such as conducting joint interviews with

potential witnesses, joint meetings with clients, depositions via telephone, or exchanging documents

outside of formal discovery.

In those cases in which: (i) the parties’ substantive allegations involve extensive computergenerated records; (ii) a substantial amount of disclosure or discovery will involve information or records

in electronic form (i.e., e-mail, word processing, databases); (iii) expert witnesses will develop testimony

based in large part on computer data and/or modeling; or (iv) any party plans to present a substantial

amount of evidence in digital form at trial, the parties shall confer regarding steps they can take to preserve

computer records and data, facilitate computer-based discovery and who will pay costs, resolve privilege

issues, limit discovery costs and delay, and avoid discovery disputes relating to electronic discovery. The

parties shall be prepared to discuss these issues, as appropriate, in the proposed Scheduling Order and at

the scheduling and planning conference. 

These are the minimum requirements for the Rule 26(f) meeting. The parties are encouraged to

have a comprehensive discussion and are required to approach the meeting cooperatively and in good

faith. The parties are reminded that the purpose of the Rule 26(f) meeting is to expedite the disposition of

the action, discourage wasteful pretrial activities, and improve the quality of any eventual trial through

more thorough preparation. The discussion of claims and defenses shall be a substantive, meaningful

discussion. 

The parties are reminded that pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 26(d), no discovery shall be sought prior to

the Rule 26(f) meeting.

Case 1:11-cv-01752-REB-CBS Document 10 Filed 08/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

(3) The parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(1)

no later than:

Seven (7) days prior to the date of

the scheduling conference

Counsel and parties are reminded that mandatory disclosure requirements encompass computer-based

evidence which may be used to support claims or defenses. Mandatory disclosures must be supplemented

by the parties consistent with the requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 26(e). Mandatory disclosures and

supplementation are not to be filed with the Clerk of the Court.

(4) This matter also is referred to Magistrate Judge Shaffer for settlement purposes and with the

authority to convene such settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution

of this case. The scheduling and planning conference is not a settlement conference, and no client

representative is required to appear. Nonetheless, to facilitate an early evaluation for the possibility of

settlement, parties shall e-mail a brief (15 pages or less including any attachments) Confidential Settlement

Statement in PDF format to Shaffer_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov no later than:

Seven (7) days prior to the date of the

scheduling conference

This statement shall briefly outline the facts and issues involved in the case, and the possibilities for

settlement, including any settlement authority from the client. Confidential settlements that are over fifteen

(15) pages are to be submitted to the court as hard copies and shall be delivered to the office of the Clerk of

the Court in an envelope marked “PRIVATE PER MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHAFFER’S ORDERS.”

(5) All parties are expected to be familiar with the United States District Court for the District of

Colorado Local Rules of Practice (D.C.COLOL.CIVR.). Copies are available through the District Court’s

web site: www.cod.uscourts.gov. 

All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C.COLOL.CIVR. 83.3 prior to the

Scheduling/Planning Conference. 

Case 1:11-cv-01752-REB-CBS Document 10 Filed 08/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of August, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer 

Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge.

Case 1:11-cv-01752-REB-CBS Document 10 Filed 08/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4