LANDYA McCAFFERTY, Magistrate Judge.
On July 3, 2013, a preliminary pretrial conference was held in this case. Attorney Stanley A. Martin appeared for defendant, 7-Eleven, Inc. Attorney Stephen W. Wight appeared for plaintiff, Paul Dixon, who attended the conference.
At the conference, the court discussed the parties' proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 19) and approved it, subject to certain modifications detailed below. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before July 13, 2013.
With respect to the discovery plan, the court adjusted several of the proposed deadlines as reflected in the chart below. The parties concurred with respect to each of the amendments.
Type of Trial Bench Trial Estimate (number of Four days days) Track Assignment Standard - 12 mos. Joinder of Additional Parties Plaintiff: July 31, 2013 Defendant: August 15, 2013 Mandatory Disclosures (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)) Third-Party Actions August 15, 2013 Amendment of Pleadings Plaintiff: August 31, 2013 Defendant: September 30, 2013 Demand September 4, 2013 Offer September 11, 2013 Electronic Disclosures September 30, 2013 Motions to Dismiss September 30, 2013 Completion of Discovery November 30, 2013 A maximum of 30 interrogatories Interrogatories by each party to any other party. Requests for Admission A maximum of 30 requests by each party to any other party. A maximum number of 4 Depositions depositions by each party. Experts and Experts' Written Plaintiff: December 31, 2013 Reports Defendant: January 31, 2014 Supplementation under Plaintiff: February 28, 2014 Rule 26(a) Defendant: March 28, 2014 Motions for Summary Judgment February 18, 2014 Challenges to Expert March 31, 2014 Testimony Joint Statement re Mediation April 30, 2014 Trial Date June 17, 2014
With respect to electronic discovery, the court orders the parties to file a supplement to the scheduling order because their statement regarding electronic discovery is inadequate. Rule 26(f)(3)(C) requires that a plan "must" include the parties' views on electronic discovery "including the form or forms in which it should be produced...." The parties' proposed discovery plan includes the following statement: "The parties will discuss and attempt to agree on appropriate format and scope of electronic information to be sought and/or disclosed...." The parties conceded that more is required under the rule.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and file, on or before July 31, 2013, a joint motion to supplement the discovery plan that outlines more specifically their plans/agreements with respect to electronic discovery. The court refers the parties to the following outline of potential issues to discuss:
A. Preservation. Counsel should attempt to agree on steps the parties will take to segregate and preserve ESI in order to avoid accusations of spoliation.
B. E-mail Information. Counsel should attempt to agree on the scope of e-mail discovery and e-mail search protocol.
C. Back-up and Archival Data. Counsel should attempt to agree on whether responsive back-up and archival data exists, the extent to which back-up and archival data is reasonably accessible, and who will bear the cost of obtaining such data.
D. Format and Media. Counsel should attempt to agree on the format and media to be used in the production of ESI, and whether production of some or all ESI in paper form is agreeable in lieu of production in electronic format.
E. Reasonably Accessible Information and Costs. Counsel should attempt to determine if any responsive ESI is not reasonably accessible, i.e., is accessible only by incurring undue burdens or costs.
F. Privileged or Trial Preparation Materials. Counsel also should attempt to reach agreement regarding what will happen in the event privileged or trial preparation materials are ...