OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi


proposed discovery plan in one of my cases before Judge Hanen

Posted on | March 11, 2015 | No Comments

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

 

DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ                                 §

Plaintiff,                                               §

  1. § 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

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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

 

  1. Specify the allegation of federal jurisdiction.

 

Answer:          5 USC 552.

 

  1. Name the parties who disagree and the reasons.

 

Answer:          None

 

  1. List anticipated additional parties that should be included, when they can be added and by whom they are wanted.

 

Answer:          None at this time.

 

  1. List anticipated interventions.

 

Answer:          None

 

  1. Describe class-action issues.

 

Answer:          None

 

  1. 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:          Initial Disclosures to be completed by _____________.                

 

  1. Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan, including:

 

  1. Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f).

 

            Answer:          R.26(f) (3)

 

  1. Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f).
  2. When and to whom the plaintiff anticipates it may send interrogatories.
  3. When and to whom the defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories.
  4. Of whom and by when the plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions.
  5. Of whom and by when the defendant anticipates taking oral depositions.
  6. 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.

  1. 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).

 

  1. When and to whom the plaintiffs anticipate it may send interrogatories.

 

Answer:          Plaintiffs will serve interrogatories on Defendant within 60 days of the date of this Plan.           

 

  1. When and to whom the defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories.

 

Answer:          Defendant will serve interrogatories on Plaintiffs within 90 days of the date of this plan.

 

  1. Of whom and by when the plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions.

 

            Answer:          All fact and expert witnesses identified by Defendant.     

 

  1. Of whom and by when the defendant anticipates taking oral depositions.

 

Answer:          All fact and expert witnesses identified by Plaintiff and Plaintiff herself.

 

  1. 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 26a(2)(B), and when the opposing party will be able to designate responsive experts and provide their reports.

 

            Answer:          September 30, 2015 for Plaintiff and October 30 for Defendant.

 

  1. 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(2)(2)(B)(expert report).

 

            Answer:          Plaintiffs experts to be deposed by October 30, 2015.                  

 

  1. List expert depositions the opposing party anticipates taking and their anticipated completion date.  See Rule 26(a)(2)(B) (expert reports).

 

            Answer:          Defendants experts to be deposed by January 30, 2016.

 

  1. If the parties are not agreed on a part of the discovery plan, describe the separate views and proposals of each party.

 

Answer:          None

 

  1. Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date.

 

Answer:          None

 

  1. State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed.

 

Answer:          January 30, 2016

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

           

  1. State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time.

 

Answer:          This is a bench trial.

 

  1. Specify the number of hours it will take to present the evidence in this case.

 

Answer:          16-24 hours

 

  1. 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. 

 

  1. List other pending motions.

 

Answer:          None

 

  1. Indicate other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, which deserve the special attention of the Court at the conference.

 

Answer:          None

 

  1. 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

State Bar No. __________

Federal Bar No. __________

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/                                                                             3/   /2015

Dr. Orly Taitz                                                              Date

Plaintiff

 

s/ Lance Duke                                                          3/   /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,                                               §

  1. §          CIVIL ACTION NO.  1:14cv264

SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY          §

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES   §

Defendant.                                           §

 

 

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

 

  1. Trial: Estimated time to try:  2– 3 days                                            _XX___Bench

 

  1. New parties must be joined by: July 30, 2015

 

  1. The plaintiff’s experts will be named with a report furnished by: September 30, 2015

 

  1. The defendant’s experts must be named with a reported furnished within 30 days of the deposition of the plaintiff’s expert. October 30, 2015

 

  1. Discovery must be completed by: January 30. 2016

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