Whiteman v. Wardlaw Consulting Services, Inc. et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2016-cv-00312

Proposed Pretrial Order by TIMOTHY WHITEMAN. (O'Brien, Kerry)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case 6:16-cv-00312-RP-JCM Document 20 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION TIMOTHY D. WHITEMAN, individually and on behalf of others § similarly situated, Plaintiffs, § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-cv-00170-RP-JCM v. § WARDLAW CONSULTING § SERVICES, INC., WILLIAM F. § WARDLAW, MICHAEL N. § WARDLAW, and REBECCA W. § MEADOWS, JURY DEMANDED § Defendants. § JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDER FRCP 26(f) 1. State where and when the meeting of the parties required by Rule 26(f) was held, and identify the counsel who attended for each party. The 26(f) conference took place via telephone on May 5, 2017 between Kerry O’Brien for Plaintiffs and Philip McCleery and David Mathews for Defendants. 2. List the cases related to this one that are pending in any state or federal court with the case number and court. None. 3. Briefly describe what this case is about. This is a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act wherein Plaintiffs seek compensation for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees. Defendants deny any liability to Plaintiff. After notice for potential similarly situated class members, there are only two plaintiffs in this case, Timothy D. Whiteman and Stephen Brewster. 4. Specify the allegation of federal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) and 29 U.S.C. 201 et. seq. 1 Case 6:16-cv-00312-RP-JCM Document 20 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 7 5. Name the parties who disagree and the reasons. None. 6. List anticipated additional parties that should be included, when they can be added and by whom they are wanted. None are anticipated. 7. List anticipated interventions. None are anticipated. 8. Describe class-action issues. None. 9. State whether each party represents that it has made the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a). If not, describe the arrangements that have been made to complete the disclosures. The parties will exchange initial disclosures by May 19, 2017. 10. Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan, including: A. Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f). FRCP 26(f)(3) Discovery Plan. A discovery plan must state the parties’ views and proposals on: (A) what changes should be made in time, form or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a) including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made; None. (B) 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: 2 The parties expect that this case will likely proceed in a relative standard fashion for a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The parties see no need for phases of discovery and anticipate that discovery can be completed within 8 months. (C) any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced; The parties agree that all electronically stored information may be produced in electronic format. However, such information must be readable by the other party using consumer-level software (e.g. Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Excel). Otherwise, paper copies must be produced. (D) 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; The parties foresee no special issues. (E) 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; The parties foresee no special issues. (F) any other orders that the Court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c). None are anticipated at this time. B. When and to whom the Plaintiffs anticipate they may send interrogatories. Plaintiffs anticipate sending interrogatories to Defendants within the next 45 days. C. When and to whom the Defendants anticipate they may send interrogatories. Defendants anticipate sending interrogatories to Plaintiffs within the next 45 days. 3 Case 6:16-cv-00312-RP-JCM Document 20 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 7 D. Of whom and by when the Plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions. Plaintiffs may need to take the depositions of the named Defendants and anyone named as a person with relevant knowledge. E. Of whom and by when the Defendants anticipate taking oral depositions. Defendants anticipate taking the deposition of Plaintiffs and anyone else whom they designates as a person with relevant knowledge. F. When the Plaintiffs (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) will be able to designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule 26(a) (2)(B) and when the opposing party will be able to designate responsive experts and provide their reports. Plaintiffs expect to be able to designate experts on or before July 28, 2017. Defendants will be able to designate their experts 30 days after Plaintiffs' designation. G. List expert depositions the Plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) anticipates taking and their anticipated completion date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B) (expert report). Plaintiffs expect to depose any experts designated by Defendants. H. List expert depositions the opposing parties anticipate taking and their anticipated completion date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B) (expert report). Defendants expect to depose any experts designated by Plaintiffs. 11. If the parties are not agreed on a part of the discovery plan, describe the separate views and proposals of each party. The parties see no disagreement at this time. 12. Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date. None. 4 Case 6:16-cv-00312-RP-JCM Document 20 Filed 05/05/17 Page 5 of 7 13. State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed. November 10, 2017. 14. Describe the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case that were discussed in your Rule 26(f) meeting. Plaintiffs will make an initial settlement proposal to Defendants on May 26, 2017. Defendants will respond to the settlement proposal by June 2, 2017. 15. Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt resolution. The parties will issue a settlement demand and response, in accordance with Paragraph 14. Early resolution attempts were not feasible based on potential class issues. 16. From the attorneys’ discussion with the client, state the alternative dispute resolution techniques that are reasonably suitable and state when such a technique may be effectively used in this case. Mediation may be appropriate once substantial discovery has been completed. 17. Magistrate judges may now hear jury and non-jury trials. Indicate the parties’ joint position on a trial before a magistrate judge. The parties will file Notice Concerning Reference to Magistrate Judge on or before June 2, 2017. 18. State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time. A jury demand has been timely made. 19. Specify the number of hours it will take to present the evidence in this case. Plaintiffs estimates that its case will require 5 hours for presentation. Defendants estimate that their case will require 5 hours for presentation. 20. List pending motions that could be ruled on at the initial pretrial and scheduling conference. None. 5 Case 6:16-cv-00312-RP-JCM Document 20 Filed 05/05/17 Page 6 of 7 21. List other motions pending. None. 22. Indicate other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, that deserve the special attention of the Court at the conference. Stephen Brewster has filed a consent form and will need to be added to the style of the case as a second plaintiff. 23. List the names, bar numbers, addresses and telephone numbers of all counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff: Kerry V. O’Brien ko@obrienlawpc.com State Bar No. 24038469 O’Brien Law Firm 1011 Westlake Drive Austin, TX 78746 512.410.1960 Telephone 512.410.6171 Facsimile Counsel for Defendants Philip E. McCleery pmccleery@slmpc.com State Bar No. 13395000 David M. Mathews dmathews@slmpc.com State Bar No. 24058211 Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, PC 510 N. Valley Mills Drive, Suite 500 Waco, TX 76710 254.772.8022 Telephone 254.772.9297 Facsimile 6 Case 6:16-cv-00312-RP-JCM Document 20 Filed 05/05/17 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 5th day of May 2017, a true and correct copy of this document was served via the CM/ECF electronic filing system on the following counsel of record: Philip E. McCleery David Mathews Counsel for Defendants/s/Kerry V. O'Brien 7