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-01985-RPM-CBS

MELANIE LITTLEFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLECTO, INC., d/b/a EOS CCA,

Defendant.

ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer by Senior District Judge Richard

P. Matsch, pursuant to the Order of Reference filed August 3, 2011. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and (B)

and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a) and (b). Parties1

 are on notice that based upon the nature of the claims, the court

has determined that this case is appropriate for expeditious disposition. As such, parties should expect to

proceed to trial within 10 months from the filing of the complaint and that all pretrial deadlines will be set

in anticipation of that trial date. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

October 4, 2011,

8:30 a.m. (Mountain Time)

The conference shall be held in Courtroom A-402, Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado. 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.

Case 1:11-cv-01985-RPM-CBS Document 5 Filed 08/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

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.” 

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

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

conference

During the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties shall discuss the following :

(a) Nature and basis of their claims and defenses. In particular, plaintiff’s counsel

should come prepared to discuss the factual basis for any claims of actual damage

and defendant’s counsel should be prepared to disclose the name and address of

defendant’s telephone service provider.

(b) Possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, or any and all

obstacles to a prompt settlement, and

(c) Develop a proposed scheduling order that reflects the following deadlines:

(i) Discovery deadline not more than 3 months after the Scheduling

Conference;

(ii) Dispositive motion deadline not more than 4 months from the

Scheduling Conference;

(iii) Final Pretrial Conference not more than 5 months after the Scheduling

Conference; and

(iv) Trial date not more than 7 months after the Scheduling Conference.

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

Case 1:11-cv-01985-RPM-CBS Document 5 Filed 08/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

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. 

Parties should be aware that the court intends to set pretrial deadlines that reflect an expedited

approach. To that end parties are reminded that they may begin discovery immediately after then Rule

26(f) meeting (see FED.R.CIV.P. 26). The court does not anticipate extending pretrial proceedings because

counsel failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by FED.R.CIV.P. 26(d). 

(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

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. Consistent with the court’s discretion

under FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(1), the parties are required to disclose the existence of any and all tape or

electronic recordings they have that would be discoverable under FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1).

(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, counsel 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 conference

Case 1:11-cv-01985-RPM-CBS Document 5 Filed 08/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

This statement shall briefly outline the facts and issues involved in the case, and should specifically

identify any facts and witnesses that would support either (1) a claim of actual damages, or (2) any

affirmative defenses asserted. The statement should also include 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 from Office of the Clerk,

United States District Court for the District of Colorado, or 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.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 24th day of August, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer 

Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01985-RPM-CBS Document 5 Filed 08/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4