Willis v. YMCA of Findlay, Ohio, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CaRissa Willis, 	Case No. 3:26-cv-630
Plaintiff,
v. 	ORDER
YMCA of Findlay, Ohio, et al.,
Defendants.
On August 26, 2026, I ordered pro se Plaintiff CaRissa Willis and Defendants’ counsel to
“hold the Rule 26(f) conference at a mutually convenient time, in person or by phone or video
conference” by September 18, 2026; Defendants’ counsel to “take the lead on coordinating the
logistics of the requisite conference (e.g., date, time, manner)”; and “[w]ithin fourteen days of the
date of their Rule 26(f) conference, and no later than October 2, 2026, Defendants’ counsel shall
electronically file the parties’ jointly proposed discovery plan.” (Doc. No. 16).
Neither Ms. Willis nor Defendants’ counsel sought an extension of the deadlines set by my
Order. Instead, on October 2, 2026, Defendants’ counsel filed a unilateral report and explained:
The parties exchanged multiple drafts of the Rule 26 Report, and largely were able to
reach agreement on Case Management. However, the Parties were unable to find a
mutually agreeable time to hold a phone conference to finalize the report, despite
their communications since September 23, 2026. Accordingly, Defendants submit
the attached incomplete report to reflect the Parties’ position on agreed issues.
(Doc. No. 17). Defendants’ counsel does not indicate what attempts, if any, were made to set up the
required Rule 26(f) conference prior to September 23, 2026 – five days after the conference was to
be held. Defendants’ counsel also makes no attempt to explain why the parties did not timely or
Case: 3:26-cv-00630-JJH Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/15/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
even belatedly seek an extension of the deadlines so that they could comply with Rule 26(f) and my
Order. Instead, Defendants’ counsel essentially suggests the parties should be excused from
complying with Rule 26(f). I’m afraid this is unacceptable.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Orders of this Court are not, of course, mere
suggestions. Both pro se litigants and counsel must comply. While I am amenable to requests for
reasonable extensions of deadlines for good cause shown, the parties cannot simply disregard my
Orders in whole or in part. With this, I order the following:
1.) Defendants’ counsel shall contact Ms. Willis no later than October 23, 2026, and provide
her with dates and times they are available to hold the Rule 26(f) conference in person, by
phone, or by video conference prior to November 19, 2026, and propose the method in
which the conference will be held (i.e., in person, by phone, or by video conference).
2.) Ms. Willis shall choose one of the times and methods offered by Defendants’ counsel and
inform Defendants’ counsel of her choice no later than October 27, 2026.
3.) The Rule 26(f) conference shall then be held at that mutually agreeable date and time and in
that mutually agreeable manner no later than November 19, 2026.
4.) During the Rule 26(f) conference, the participants shall discuss “the nature and basis of their
claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or
arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving
discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2).
The proposed discovery plan must be a jointly proposed and be substantially in the form of
Attachment 1. With this, I remind Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel that they “are jointly
responsible . . . for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2). If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on any part of the
proposed discovery plan, their response to the disputed point(s) must:
Case: 3:26-cv-00630-JJH Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/15/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
a. 	State each of their respective positions on the disputed point;
b. 	Explain the reasoning for their respective positions; and
c. 	Offer any applicable legal authority to support their respective position.
5.) Within fourteen days of the date of their Rule 26(f) conference, and no later than December
3, 2026, Defendants’ counsel shall electronically file the parties’ jointly proposed discovery
plan.
If the parties require an extension of any deadline, they must file a motion prior to the date
of the subject deadline that includes a specific and compelling showing of cause for the extension
sought. If the parties fail to comply with this Order, the parties and their representatives will be
ordered to appear for a show cause hearing.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00630-JJH Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/15/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>