White, Jr. et al v. Pulman, Cappuccio, & Pullen, LLP et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00535

Rule 26(f) Discovery Report/Case Management Plan Joint Planning Report by Pulman, Cappuccio, & Pullen, LLP.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION § ED WHITE, JR. and ELLA WHITE, on § behalf of themselves and all others similarly § situated, § Plaintiffs, § § vs. Civil Action No. SA:19-cv-00535-DAE § PULMAN, CAPPUCCIO & PULLEN, LLP; § ELLIOTT CAPPUCCIO, ESQ.; and JOHN § AND JANE DOES 1-25, § § Defendants. § JOINT PLANNING REPORT The Parties, having met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), jointly submit the following discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f): 1. What changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a)? None. The parties agree to serve their Rule 26(a) initial disclosures by August 26, 2019. 2. The subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues. A. The subjects on which discovery may be needed include the following: • The factual bases for Plaintiffs' claims alleged in the Complaint [Doc. 1]; • The factual bases for Defendants' denials of the Complaint's allegations and their asserted Affirmative Defenses [Doc. 10.]; 4839-7105-2448 • The factual predicates for class certification; and • The proper measure of damages sought for the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint [Doc. 1]. B. When discovery should be completed: • April 6, 2020. C. Whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues: • The Parties do not currently request any changes in the limitations on discovery. 3. Any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced. • None. The Parties have discussed the disclosure or discovery of electronically-stored information ("ESI"). The Parties are aware of their respective duties to preserve such information and do not now anticipate difficulties related to discovery of such information. The Parties agree ESI production in this case is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E). 4. Any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including—if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production—whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502. • The parties will abide by the Federal Rules with respect to claims of privilege and/or work product. Inadvertent production of documents subject to the work-product and/or the attorney-client privilege(s), confidentiality, or other legal privilege protecting information from discovery, including electronic meta-data or other file properties, shall not constitute a waiver of the immunity or privilege, provided that the producing party shall, with 2 4839-7105-2448 reasonable promptness, notify the receiving party in writing of such inadvertent production. If reasonably prompt notice is given, such inadvertently produced documents and all copies thereof, as well as all notes or other work product reflecting the contents of such materials, shall be returned to the producing party or destroyed, upon request, and such returned or destroyed material shall be deleted from any litigation-support or other database. No use shall be made of such documents during deposition or at trial, nor shall they be shown to anyone who was not given access to them prior to the request to return or destroy them. The party returning such material then may move the Court for an order compelling production of the material, but such motion shall not assert as a ground for entering such an order the fact or circumstances of the inadvertent production. 5. What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed? • None. The Parties do not currently request any changes in the limitations on discovery. 6. Any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c). • The parties anticipate filing an Unopposed Motion for the Entry of a Protective Order governing the use of confidential information produced in discovery. The Parties' proposed Order will be in the approved form set out in Appendix H to the Local Rules. 3 4839-7105-2448 Respectfully submitted this 12th day of August 2019. /s/ Mary W. Byars s/ Andrew T. Thomasson Casey L. Dobson (TX Bar # 05927600) Andrew T. Thomasson (NJ Bar # 048362011) Mary W. Byars (TX Bar # 24097443) Philip D. Stern (NJ Bar # 045921984) SCOTT DOUGLASS & MCMCONNICO LLP Francis R. Greene (IL Bar # 6272313) 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 STERN•THOMASSON LLP Austin, TX 78701-3234 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Telephone: (512) 495-6300 Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Facsimile: (512) 495-6399 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 E-Mail: cdobson@scottdoug.com E-Mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com E-Mail: mbyars@scottdoug.com E-Mail: philip@sternthomasson.com E-Mail: francis@sternthomasson.com Attorneys for Defendants, Pulman, Cappuccio & Pullen, LLP and Elliott Cappuccio William M. Clanton (TX Bar No. 24049436) LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON P.C. 926 Chulie Drive San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone: (210) 226-0800 E-Mail: bill@clantonlawoffice.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Ed White Jr. and Ella White 4 4839-7105-2448