Tealeh v. Ward County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Flomo Tealeh, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER FOR RULE 16(b)
vs. ) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE,
) AND ORDER RE RESOLUTION
) OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Ward County, Sandra Richter, Melissa )
Bliss, and John Does 1-200, inclusive, )
) Case No.: 1-17-cv-105
Defendants. )
______________________________________________________________________________
IT IS ORDERED:
RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
The court shall hold a Rule 16(b) initial pretrial scheduling/discovery conference on August
10, 2017, at 10:00 a.m CST. The court shall initiate the conference call. The court will work with
the parties at the scheduling conference to establish pretrial deadlines and formulate a scheduling
and discovery plan. Attached is a sample scheduling and discovery plan for the parties’ reference.
RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
It is hereby ORDERED that the following steps be undertaken by all parties prior to the
filing of any discovery motions:
1) The parties are strongly encouraged to informally resolve all discovery issues and
disputes without the necessity of Court intervention. In that regard, the parties are
first required to confer and fully comply with Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37.1 by undertaking a sincere, good faith effort to try
to resolve all differences without Court action or intervention;
1
Case 1:17-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 11 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 2

2) In the event that reasonable, good faith efforts have been made by all parties to confer
and attempt to resolve any differences, without success, the parties are then required
to schedule a telephonic conference with the Magistrate Judge in an effort to try to
resolve the discovery dispute prior to the filing of any motions. The parties shall
exhaust the first two steps of the process before any motions, briefs, memorandums
of law, exhibits, deposition transcripts, or any other discovery materials are filed with
the Court.
3) If the dispute still cannot be resolved following a telephonic conference with the
Magistrate Judge, then the Court (Magistrate Judge) will entertain a motion to
compel discovery, motion for sanctions, motion for protective order, or other
discovery motions. In connection with the filing of any such motions, the moving
party shall first fully comply with all requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37.1 and shall submit the appropriate
certifications to the Court as required by those rules.
4) The Court will refuse to hear any discovery motion unless the parties have made a
sincere, good faith effort to resolve the dispute and all of the above-identified steps
have been strictly complied with. A failure to fully comply with all of the
prerequisite steps may result in a denial of any motion with prejudice and may result
in an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Dated this 12th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Case 1:17-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 11 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 2