UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION
Defendant.
NOTICE OF INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE,
ORDER FOR JOINT STATEMENT AND CERTIFICATIONS,
AND ORDER FOR ELECTRONIC FILING
Take Notice that an INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE will be held
with Judge Woodlock in Courtroom 1, on the 3rd Floor of the John
Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse in Boston at________________ ,
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and Local Rule 16.1.
The court considers attendance of the senior lawyers ultimately
responsible for the case and compliance with sections (B),(C),and(D)
of Local Rule 16.11 to be of the utmost importance. In addition, the
1
These sections of Local Rule 16.1 provide:
(B) Obligation of counsel to confer. Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, counsel for the parties shall, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f),
confer no later than 21 days before the date for the scheduling conference for the purpose of:
(1) preparing an agenda of matters to be discussed at the scheduling conference,
(2) preparing a proposed pretrial schedule for the case that includes a plan for discovery, and
(3) considering whether they will consent to trial by magistrate judge.
(C) Settlement proposals. Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, the plaintiff shall present written settlement proposals to all defendants
no later than ten (10) days before the date for the scheduling conference. Defense counsel shall have conferred with their clients on the subject of
settlement before the scheduling conference and be prepared to respond to the proposals at the scheduling conference.
(D) Joint statement. Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, the parties are required to file, no later than 5 business days before the
scheduling conference and after consideration of the topics contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) and 26(f), a joint statement containing a proposed
pretrial schedule, which shall include:
(1) a joint discovery plan scheduling the time and length for all discovery events, that shall
(a) conform to the obligation to limit discovery set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), and
(b) take into account the desirability of conducting phased discovery in which the first phase is limited to
developing information needed for a realistic assessment of the case and, if the case does not terminate,
the second phase is directed at information needed to prepare for trial; and
(2) a proposed schedule for the filing of motions; and
(3) certifications signed by counsel and by an authorized representative of each party affirming that each party and that party's counsel
have conferred:
(a) with a view to establishing a budget for the costs of conducting the full course--and various alternative
courses--of the litigation; and
(b) to consider the resolution of the litigation through the use of alternative dispute resolution programs
such as those outlined in Local Rule 16.4.
To the extent that all parties are able to reach agreement on a proposed pretrial schedule, they shall so indicate. To the extent that the
parties differ on what the pretrial schedule should be, they shall set forth separately the items on which they differ and indicate the nature of that
difference. The purpose of the parties' proposed pretrial schedule or schedules shall be to advise the judge of the parties' best estimates of the
amounts of time they will need to accomplish specified pretrial steps. The parties' proposed agenda for the scheduling conference, and their
proposed pretrial schedule or schedules, shall be considered by the judge as advisory only.
attention of counsel is directed to the attached Standing Order for
this session regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Relatively
Inexperienced Attorneys, attached to this notice.
Counsel may be given a continuance only if actually engaged on
trial. Failure to comply fully with this notice and with sections
(B), (C), and (D) of Local Rule 16.1 may result in sanctions under
Local Rule 1.3.
By no later than 2 weeks after the conference, the parties shall
comply with Local Rule 26.2(A) with respect to automatic disclosure.
The parties are reminded that under Local Rule 26.2(A) no party may
initiate any formal discovery unless that party has complied with the
requirements of Local Rule 26.2 in its entirety.
Counsel for the plaintiff is responsible for ensuring that all
parties and/or their attorneys, who have not filed an answer or
appearance with the court, are notified of the scheduling conference
date.
The parties should be prepared to address any outstanding issues
or motions at the scheduling conference.
ORDER FOR ELECTRONIC FILING
1. Electronic Filings of Pleadings with this Court:
It is hereby ORDERED that, unless leave is granted, upon good
cause shown, to file paper documents in lieu of electronic filing via
this Court’s CM/ECF system, ALL future submissions in this case must
be electronically filed. Such filings shall be made in accordance
with, and subject to, the terms and conditions of electronic filing as
set forth by this Court. All parties and counsel who choose to appear
in this action must make arrangements to register for participation in
electronic case filing, if they have not already done so.
2 Notices of Hearings, Rulings and Orders of this Court;
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Notices, Orders and Memoranda of the
Court will only be filed and served electronically. Once a party or
counsel has registered for electronic filing, it is his/her
responsibility to monitor his/her e-mail to ensure receipt of
electronic notices. Any changes in e-mail addresses must be reported
to the Court immediately.
3. Help Information
Information and help on how to register for CM/ECF may be found
at this Court’s website, www.mad.uscourts.gov
By: _____________________
Deputy Clerk
Date:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STANDING ORDER REGARDING COURTROOM OPPORTUNITIES
FOR RELATIVELY INEXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS
Courtroom opportunities for relatively inexperienced attorneys,
particularly those who practice at larger firms, have declined
precipitously across the nation in recent years. That decline is due
to a variety of factors, but has been exacerbated by the proliferation
of rules and orders such as this Court's Notice of Initial Scheduling
Conference requiring the appearance of "senior" or “lead” counsel in
many court proceedings.
In an effort to counter this trend, this session, adopting the
policy developed in the Central Division by Judge Saylor and
Magistrate Judge Hillman, strongly encourages the participation of
relatively inexperienced attorneys in all court proceedings. Such
attorneys may handle not only relatively routine matters (such as
scheduling conferences or discovery motions), but may also handle,
where appropriate, more complex matters (such as motions for summary
judgment or the examination of witnesses at trial). The following
cautions, however, shall apply.
First, even relatively inexperienced attorneys will be held to
the highest professional standards with regard to any matter as to
which experience is largely irrelevant. In particular, all attorneys
appearing in court are expected to be appropriately prepared,
regardless of experience. For example, any attorney who is arguing a
motion for summary judgment is expected to be thoroughly familiar with
the factual record and the applicable law.
Second, all attorneys appearing in court should have a degree of
authority commensurate with the proceeding that they are assigned to
handle. For example, an attorney appearing at a scheduling conference
ordinarily should have the authority to propose and agree to a
discovery schedule and any other matters reasonably likely to arise at
the conference.
Third, relatively inexperienced attorneys who participate in
evidentiary hearings of substantial complexity, such as examining a
witness at trial, should be accompanied and supervised by a more
experienced attorney, unless leave of Court is granted to proceed
otherwise.
Counsel are encouraged to seek additional guidance from the Court
in particular cases concerning the scope or application of this
policy.
/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 1, 2008
