Discovery schedule in one of cases by Orly Taitz before Judge Hanen
Posted on | March 16, 2015 | No Comments
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ §
Plaintiff, §
- § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv264
SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY §
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES §
Defendant. §
JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
UNDER RULE 26(f) FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
- State where and when the meeting of the parties required by Rule 26 was held and identify counsel who attended for each party.
Answer: The parties exchanged proposed joint discovery/case management plans via email and confirmed changes over the phone on March 11, 2015.
- List the cases related to this one that are pending in any state or federal court with the case number and court.
Answer: Taitz v. Johnson, et al 1:14cv119
- Specify the allegation of federal jurisdiction.
Answer: (a) This is a review of the FOIA, 5 USC 552, response provided by the
Centers For Disease Control and whether the agency properly
complied with Plaintiff’s request.
(b) Defendant Sylvia Burwell takes the position that venue may be improper in the Southern District of Texas and instead lie where the Plaintiff resides, has her principal place of business, where the records are located or in the District of Columbia per 5 USC 552(a)(4)(B).
(b) Defendant Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security respectfully submits that this case should be adjudicated
based on the administrative record.
- Name the parties who disagree and the reasons.
Answer: Plaintiff believes venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because
that is where the records are located.
- List anticipated additional parties that should be included, when they can be added and by whom they are wanted.
Answer: Defendant Sylvia Burwell is not a proper party to the suit. The agency,
Centers for Disease Control, is the proper party and Plaintiff should be
allowed to amend her pleading to reflect the same.
Plaintiff disagrees, chairs of departments are often listed as FOIA defendants. CDC is a part of HHS, as such Burwell is a proper party
- List anticipated interventions.
Answer: None
- Describe class-action issues.
Answer: None
- 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.
Answer: Plaintiff is requesting that initial disclosures be completed by September 30, 2015.
Defendant’s position is that the documents are limited to the existing records which have been exchanged and filed.
- Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan, including:
- Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f).
Answer: R.26(f) (3)
- Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f).
- When and to whom the plaintiff anticipates it may send interrogatories.
- When and to whom the defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories.
- Of whom and by when the plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions.
- Of whom and by when the defendant anticipates taking oral depositions.
- When the plaintiff (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.
- 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).
- Plaintiff is requesting the Court to set a date for responses raised in Rule
26(f).
Defendant’s position is this is not applicable.
- Plaintiff is requesting 60 days from the date of this plan to send Plaintiff’s interrogatories.
Defendant’s position is this is not applicable.
- Defendant’s position is this is not applicable.
- Plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions of all fact and expert witnesses
identified by Defendant by the date provided by the Court.
Defendant’s position is this is not applicable.
- Defendant’s position is this is not applicable.
- Plaintiff requests to designate Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s experts by September 30, 2015.
Defendant’s position is this is not applicable.
- Plaintiff requests that Plaintiff’s experts be deposed by September 30, 2015.
Defendant’s position is this is not applicable.
- Plaintiff requests that Defendant’s experts be deposed by September 30,
2015.
Defendant’s position is this is not applicable.
- If the parties are not agreed on a part of the discovery plan, describe the separate views and proposals of each party.
Answer: See above.
- Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date.
Answer: N/A
- State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed.
Answer: N/A
- Describe the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case that were discussed in your Rule 26(f) conference.
Answer: The possibilities for prompt resolution are viewed by the parties as fair.
- Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt resolution.
Answer: Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as moot or in the alternative as a request for summary judgment.
Plaintiff is seeking production of additional documents and examination of the log of documents
- 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.
Answer: The parties are amenable to mediation of this claim and would consider a Magistrate Judge at a settlement conference.
- Magistrate judges may hear jury and non-jury trials. Indicate the parties’ joint position on a trial before a magistrate judge.
Answer: The parties do not agree on having a Magistrate Judge hear this case.
- State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time.
Answer: This is a bench trial.
- Specify the number of hours it will take to present the evidence in this case.
Answer: 16-24 hours
- List pending motions that could be ruled on at the initial pretrial and scheduling conference.
Answer: Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as moot or in the alternative motion for summary judgment.
- List other pending motions.
Answer: None
- Indicate other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, which deserve the special attention of the Court at the conference.
Answer: None
- List the names, bar numbers, addresses and telephone numbers of all counsel.
Answer:
Kenneth Magidson
United States Attorney
Lance Duke
Assistant United States Attorney
Texas Bar No. 00798157
Federal Bar No. 21949
800 North Shoreline, Suite 500
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
(361) 888-3111
(361) 888-3200 (Facsimile)
lance.duke@usdoj.gov (Email)
Attorneys for Defendant, Sylvia Burwell,
Secretary of Health And Human Services
Dr. Orly Taitz
California State Bar No. 223433
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949) 683-5411
(949) 766-7603 (Facsimile)
orly.taitz@hushmail.com (Email)
Attorney for the Plaintiff
By our signatures below, Counsel represent that each understands that the Court will rely on these representations in entering its scheduling Order.
s/ Dr. Orly Taitz (by permission) 3/17/2015
Dr. Orly Taitz Date
Plaintiff
s/ Lance Duke 3/17/2015
Lance Duke Date
Assistant United States Attorney
Counsel for Defendant,
Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health
And Human Services
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ §
Plaintiff, §
- § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv264
SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY §
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES §
Defendant. §
PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
- Trial: Estimated time to try: 2– 3 days _XX___Bench
- New parties must be joined by: _________________
- The plaintiff’s experts will be named with a report furnished by: _________________
- The defendant’s experts must be named with a reported furnished within 30 days of the deposition of the plaintiff’s expert. _________________
- Discovery must be completed by: _________________
Counsel may agree to continue discovery beyond the deadline, but there will be no intervention by the court.
No continuance will be granted because of information acquired in post-deadline discovery.
Comments
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
