IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02472–REB–KMT

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, in its capacity as successor indenture

trustee for a certain series of Senior Notes,

LAW DEBENTURE TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, in its capacity as successor

indenture trustee for a certain series of Senior Notes, and

WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, in its capacity as successor indenture trustee for the

PHONES Notes,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

BOB FUSHIMI,

CLOVIA L. FUSHIMI,

JANNA L. GADDEN,

DONNA C. LIES,

MARK S. LIES,

BARBARA MARTELL,

GREAT-WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO.,

MAXIM FOREIGN EQUITY PORTFOLIO,

NORA E. MORGENSTERN,

QUIXOTE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,

DEANN K. RILEY,

DAVID L. RILEY,

SARA ROONEY,

KIMBERLY SCHATZ,

THE EDWARD J. SIDNEY TRUST U/A 07/22/76,

RUTH WOTTGE,

EIGHTH DISTRICT ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND,

QCM ABSOLUTE RETURN FUND,

QUIXOTE PARTNERS LLC,

A. HOYER,

SCOTTRADE, INC.,

E. GALLAGHER,

F. TONG,

HOYER/LEMTS,

MAK/TU,

Case 1:11-cv-02472-REB-KMT Document 13 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
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.

2

DENNIS J. BRITT,

DENNIS J. BRITT ROLLOVER IRA,

SIMON WOTTGE,

MAXIM T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY/INCOME PORTFOLIO,

T. ROWE PRICE GROUP INC.,

JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-5000, 

MAXIM SERIES FUND, INC.,

EDWARD J. SIDNEY, as trustee of the Edward J. Sidney Trust U/A/ 07/22/76,

FRED MARTELL,

DONALD ROONEY,

JEFFREY SCHATZ, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons and

entities,

Defendants.

ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING

This case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya following the

recusal of Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on September 30, 2011.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

December 15, 2011, at

10:45 a.m. (Mountain Time).

The conference shall be held in Courtroom C-201, Second Floor, of the Byron Rogers U.S.

Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. If this date is not convenient for any party1

,

he or she shall file a motion to reschedule the conference to a more convenient time. Please

remember that anyone seeking entry into the Byron Rogers United States Courthouse will

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

Case 1:11-cv-02472-REB-KMT Document 13 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
3

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

order can be downloaded from the Court’s website at www.co.uscourts.gov/forms-frame.htm

(Click on “Civil Forms” in the blue box at the top of the screen and scroll down to the bold

heading “Standardized Order Forms”). Parties shall prepare the proposed scheduling order in

accordance with the Court’s form.

The parties shall submit their proposed scheduling order, pursuant to District of Colorado

Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures V.5.12., on or before:

5:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) on

December 8, 2011.

Attorneys and/or pro se parties not participating in ECF shall submit their proposed scheduling

order on paper to the Clerk’s Office. However, if any party in the case is participating in ECF, it

is the responsibility of that party to submit the proposed scheduling order pursuant to the District

of Colorado ECF Procedures.

The plaintiff shall notify all parties who have not yet entered an appearance of the date

and time of the scheduling/planning conference, and shall provide a copy of this Order to those

parties.

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

confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), on or before: 

November 23, 2011.

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

computer-generated records; (ii) a substantial amount of disclosure or discovery will involve

Case 1:11-cv-02472-REB-KMT Document 13 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
4

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.

(3) The parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(1) on or before:

December 8, 2011.

Counsel and parties are reminded that mandatory disclosure requirements encompass computerbased 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) All parties are expected to be familiar with the United States District Court for the

District of Colorado Local Rules of Practice (D.C.COLO.LCivR.). 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. 

Case 1:11-cv-02472-REB-KMT Document 13 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
5

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

Scheduling/Planning Conference.

Dated this 4th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Kathleen M. Tafoya

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02472-REB-KMT Document 13 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5