Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rigby v. Corliss

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

August 3, 2017

JAMES F. RIGBY, Chapter 7 Trustee of Michael R. Mastro, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. CORLISS, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER REGARDING JOINT STATUS REPORT

          Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge.

         The parties are directed to confer and provide the Court with a Joint Status Report (the “Report”) by August 30, 2017.[1] This conference shall be by direct and personal communication, whether that be a face-to-face meeting or a telephonic conference. The Report will be used in setting a schedule for the prompt completion of the case, and the parties are reminded of their obligation to cooperate to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this case. FRCP 1. The Report must contain the following information by corresponding paragraph numbers:

         1. A statement of the nature and complexity of the issues remaining in the case.

         2. The subjects, timing, and potential phasing of any necessary discovery, and how the parties intend to manage discovery to promote the expeditious and inexpensive resolution of the case, specifically including consideration of the items set forth in LCR 26(f)(1)(D).

         3. Agreements or issues related to the preservation of discoverable information and the scope of the preservation obligation.

         4. Whether the case will involve Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”), how the parties intend to preserve and produce ESI, and whether the parties agree to adopt this district's Model Agreement Regarding Discovery of ESI.

         5. Whether the case will involve unique or extensive claims of privilege or work product protection. If documents responsive to a discovery request are withheld on a claim of privilege or other protection from disclosure, a privilege log must be produced within the time frames established for discovery responses. Simply asserting an objection on the ground of privilege or noting that privileged documents have been withheld is not sufficient.

         6. Procedures for handling the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information.

         7. What changes, if any, should be made to the limitations on discovery.

         8. The date discovery can be completed.

         9. Suggestions for the prompt and efficient resolution of the case, such as the phasing of motions to resolve dispositive issues or the bifurcation of liability and damage issues.

         10. Whether the parties intend to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process beyond the required settlement conference, such as mediation or the individualized trial program set forth in LCR 39.2.

         11. The month the case will be ready for trial. Identify any calendaring conflicts that should be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.