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 Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02688-CMA-BNB

FLOYD’S 99 HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDE’S BARBERSHOP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

AND RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M.

Arguello, pursuant to the Order of Reference dated November 14, 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 will hold a scheduling/planning conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b) on:

January 27, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

The conference will be held in Courtroom A-401, Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States

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

, that

party shall confer with opposing parties and contact my chambers to reschedule the conference

to a more convenient date. Please remember anyone entering the Alfred A. Arraj United

States Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See

D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2 B.

Case 1:11-cv-02688-CMA-BNB Document 22 Filed 11/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

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

scheduling order can be downloaded from the court’s website at www.cod.uscourts.gov. (Click

on “Forms” in the blue box at the left side of the screen and scroll down under the Civil section

to the bold heading “Standardized Order Forms”). Parties shall prepare the proposed scheduling

order in accordance with the court’s form. Please note that the form of scheduling order was

modified December 2010. Parties are directed to use the modified form.

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

Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures V.4.0, including a copy of the proposed scheduling

order in a WordPerfect or Word format sent via e-mailed to

Boland_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov, all as required by ECF Procedure V.4.0. 5.12(A)(2) and

5.12(B)(1) and (2), on or before:

January 20, 2012

Attorneys and/or 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 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:

January 6, 2012

The court encourages the parties to meet face to face, but if that is not possible, 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 Rule 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.

Case 1:11-cv-02688-CMA-BNB Document 22 Filed 11/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

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

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, 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/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:

January 20, 2012

Counsel and parties are reminded that the 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) All parties are expected to be familiar with the Local Rules of Practice for the District

of Colorado. Copies are available from the Clerk of the Court, 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.COLO.LCivR 83.3 prior to the scheduling/planning

conference.

Case 1:11-cv-02688-CMA-BNB Document 22 Filed 11/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

DATED November 18, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02688-CMA-BNB Document 22 Filed 11/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4