TECMA Transportation Services, LLC v. 200 South Pemberton, LLC

Docket 2:22-cv-00456

Filed
2022-06-15
Terminated
2025-02-21
Case type
cv

Outcome

voluntarily dismissed

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=84 OFFICE=2 DOCKET=2200456 FILEDATE=06/15/2022 DISP=12, PROCPROG=5, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO TECMA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:22-cv-456 GJF/KRS 200 SOUTH PEMBERTON, LLC, Defendant. INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER This case is before the Court for scheduling, case management, discovery, and other non- dispositive matters. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as well as the Local Rules of the Court, will apply to this lawsuit. The parties, appearing through counsel or pro se, shall “meet and confer” no later than September 6, 2022 to formulate a provisional discovery plan. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). As part of this process, the parties are reminded that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires them to exchange views on the “disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced.” The parties have an attendant duty to preserve all electronically stored information that may be discoverable in this case. The time allowed for discovery is generally 120 to 180 days. The parties will cooperate in preparing a Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan (“JSR”) that follows the sample available on the Court’s website.1 The blanks for suggested/proposed dates in the JSR are to be filled in by the parties. Actual dates will be promulgated by order of the Court to be 1 Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 06-173, the JSR replaces and supersedes the Provisional Discovery Plan and the Initial Pretrial Report, effective January 2, 2007. The standardized Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan is available at www.nmd.uscourts.gov/forms from the drop-down menu. entered after the Rule 16 scheduling conference scheduled pursuant to this order. Plaintiff, or Defendant in cases which have been removed from State District Court, is responsible for filing the JSR by September 13, 2022. Initial disclosures by a party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be made within fourteen days after the meet-and-confer session. A telephonic Rule 16 scheduling conference will be conducted on September 21, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel and pro se parties shall call (888) 398-2342 and enter access code 8193818 to be connected to the telephonic Rule 16 scheduling conference. At the Rule 16 scheduling conference, counsel and parties pro se should be prepared to discuss discovery needs and scheduling, all claims and defenses, the use of scientific evidence, whether a Daubert2 hearing is necessary, initial disclosures, and the time of expert disclosures and reports under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). The Court, counsel, and parties pro se will also discuss settlement prospects and alternative dispute resolution possibilities. In addition, the scheduling conference participants will address consideration of consent by the parties to a United States Magistrate Judge presiding over dispositive proceedings, including motions and trial, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Parties represented by counsel may, but are not required to, attend the telephonic scheduling conference. If service on all parties is not complete, Plaintiff(s) appearing through counsel or pro se is/are responsible for notifying all parties of the content of this order. Good cause must be shown, and the express written approval obtained from the Court, for any modifications of the dates in the scheduling order that issues from the JSR. Pretrial practice in this case shall be in accordance with the above. 2 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). IT IS SO ORDERED. KEVIN R. SWEAZEA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 3 of 3

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.