Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:13-cv-00922 #36

2:13-cv-00922 #36

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 36 - Joint report of parties' planning meeting
Doc 36 - Joint report of parties' planning meeting

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Apr 16, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





PAUL HARD, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BENTLEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama; LUTHER JOHNSON STRANGE, III in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alabama; STEVEN L. REED in his official capacity as Probate Judge for the County of Montgomery; PAT FANCHER; Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-922-WKW
The following attorneys participated in a Rule 26(f) conference on April 8, 2014 in person: For Plaintiff: David Dinielli and Samuel Wolfe. For Defendants Bentley and Strange: James Davis and Laura Howell. For Defendant Fancher: Gabriel Smith. Attorneys for Defendant Reed did not attend; a notice dismissing Defendant Reed from the case was filed on April 11, 2014. Counsel for Plaintiffs, David Dinielli and Samuel Wolfe also met in person with counsel for Defendants Bentley and Strange, James Davis on March 21, 2014 prior to the intervention of Defendant Fancher. 2.
Initial Disclosures. All parties will serve their initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by April 25, 2014. 3.
Discovery Plan. The parties anticipate that this case will be resolved on summary  judgment and that a trial will not be needed. Yet counsel have been unable to agree on a proposed discovery schedule.
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 5
2 (a)
Plaintiff has proposed the following schedule designed to avoid delay and focus briefing and discovery on the primary facts and issues in dispute: (i)
Fact and expert discovery will remain open until summary judgment briefing is complete. (ii)
Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is due June 20, 2014. (iii)
Defendants’ oppositions and cross motions are due July 18, 2014. (iv)
Plaintiff’s replies are due August 15, 2014. (v)
Defendants’ surreplies are due September 12, 2014. (vi)
A hearing on the motions will be held September 24, 2014 or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court. (b)
Defendants Bentley and Strange have proposed the following schedule that requires the close of discovery prior to submission of summary judgment briefs and further extends briefing (counsel for Defendant Fancher has not expressed an opinion as to the competing proposals): (i)
Initial expert witness disclosures are due July 1, 2014. (ii)
Rebuttal expert witness disclosures are due August 1, 2014. (iii)
Discovery cut-off is September 2, 2014. (iv)
Plaintiff’s dispositive motion deadline is September 15, 2014. (v)
Defendants’ oppositions and dispositive motions deadline is October 15, 2014. (vi)
Plaintiff’s reply is due November 5, 2014. (vii)
Defendants’ surreplies are due November 19, 2014. (c)
Discovery will be needed on these subjects (Defendants do not concede that each area of discovery listed is relevant to the legal claims herein): (i)
Policies, practices, and procedures for administering Ala. Code § 30-1-19 (“Marriage Protection Act”) and Ala. Const. Amend. No. 774 (“Sanctity of Marriage Amendment”; collectively referred to as the “Sanctity Laws”). (ii)
Effects of the Sanctity Laws.
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 04/16/14 Page 2 of 5
3 (iii)
Purpose and intent behind the Sanctity Laws. (iv)
Harms to Plaintiff resulting from enforcement of the Sanctity Laws. (v)
Defendants’ defenses. (d)
Disclosure and discovery of electronically stored information: (i)
To identify and preserve any potential ESI, counsel have alerted their clients to ensure proper protections are in place to prevent deletion of documents potentially relevant to this litigation, to notify those persons in relevant positions to refrain from destroying ESI that may be relevant to the claims in this litigation, and to ensure no inadvertent deletion of ESI occurs. (ii)
The parties will produce discoverable ESI in a format and media that is mutually agreeable to the parties, but that at a minimum preserves all accompanying metadata and embedded data. ESI will include, but not be limited to, emails, electronic documents, voicemails, and text or instant messages from all accounts used in both personal and official capacities. (iii)
The parties are not aware of any discoverable deleted ESI or of any discoverable ESI that is not reasonably accessible at this time. In the event any privileged information is inadvertently disclosed via any ESI, the parties agree that the privilege is not waived. (iv)
The parties have agreed to no changes to the standard rules governing limits on interrogatories, requests for admission, depositions, and deposition length and dates for responses. 4.
Other Items: (a)
The parties request a conference with the Court at its early convenience concerning the proposals herein. (b)
The final date for Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings or to join parties is May 30, 2014. (c)
The final date for Defendants to amend their pleadings or to join parties is May 30, 2014, unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint within less than 30 days of May 30, 2014, in which case each Defendant will have 30 days from the date of such filing to amend their pleadings or to join parties.
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 04/16/14 Page 3 of 5

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->