Rule 16 – Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

\r\n

Amendments Effective Dec. 1, 2015

\r\nAmendments | Summary of Changes | Committee Note | Complete Amended Rule | Additional Resources\r\nRule 16 Amendments in Complete Rule: (b)(1)(B) | (b)(2) | (b)(3)(B)(iii) | (b)(3)(B)(iv) | (b)(3)(B)(v) | (b)(3)(B)(vi) | (b)(3)(B)(vii)\r\n


\r\n

Amended Rule 16(b)

\r\n

\r\n

(b) Scheduling.

\r\n

(1) Scheduling Order. Except in categories of actions exempted by local rule, the district judge — or a magistrate judge when authorized by local rule — must issue a scheduling order:

\r\n

(A) after receiving the parties’ report under Rule 26(f); or

\r\n

(B) after consulting with the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference by telephone, mail, or other means.[CN 1]

\r\n

(2) Time to Issue. The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but in any eventunless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 12090 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 9060 days after any defendant has appeared.[CN 2]

\r\n

(3) Contents of the Order.

\r\n

* * * * *

\r\n

(B) Permitted Contents. The scheduling order may:

\r\n

* * * * *

\r\n

(iii) provide for disclosure, ordiscovery, or preservation of electronically stored information;[CN 3]

\r\n

(iv) include any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material after information is produced, including agreements reached under Federal Rule of Evidence 502;[CN 4]

\r\n

(v) direct that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court;[CN 5]

\r\n

(vvi) set dates for pretrial conferences and for trial; and

\r\n

(vivii) include other appropriate matters.

\r\n

* * * * *

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

AmendedEffective
Apr. 29, 2015Dec. 1, 2015
Apr. 30, 2007Dec. 1, 2007
Apr. 12, 2006Dec. 1, 2006
Apr. 22, 1993Dec. 1, 1993
Mar. 2, 1987Aug. 1, 1987
Apr. 28, 1983Aug. 1, 1983

\r\n


\r\n

Summary of Changes

\r\n\r\n


\r\n

Committee Note

\r\n

[CN 1] The provision for consulting at a scheduling conference by “telephone, mail, or other means” is deleted. A scheduling conference is more effective if the court and parties engage in direct simultaneous communication. The conference may be held in person, by telephone, or by more sophisticated electronic means.

\r\n

[CN 2] The time to issue the scheduling order is reduced to the earlier of 90 days (not 120 days) after any defendant has been served, or 60 days (not 90 days) after any defendant has appeared. This change, together with the shortened time for making service under Rule 4(m), will reduce delay at the beginning of litigation. At the same time, a new provision recognizes that the court may find good cause to extend the time to issue the scheduling order. In some cases it may be that the parties cannot prepare adequately for a meaningful Rule 26(f) conference and then a scheduling conference in the time allowed. Litigation involving complex issues, multiple parties, and large organizations, public or private, may be more likely to need extra time to establish meaningful collaboration between counsel and the people who can supply the information needed to participate in a useful way. Because the time for the Rule 26(f) conference is geared to the time for the scheduling conference or order, an order extending the time for the scheduling conference will also extend the time for the Rule 26(f) conference. But in most cases it will be desirable to hold at least a first scheduling conference in the time set by the rule.

\r\n

Three items are added to the list of permitted contents in Rule 16(b)(3)(B).

\r\n

[CN 3] The order may provide for preservation of electronically stored information, a topic also added to the provisions of a discovery plan under Rule 26(f)(3)(C). Parallel amendments of Rule 37(e) recognize that a duty to preserve discoverable information may arise before an action is filed.

\r\n

[CN 4] The order also may include agreements incorporated in a court order under Evidence Rule 502 controlling the effects of disclosure of information covered by attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, a topic also added to the provisions of a discovery plan under Rule 26(f)(3)(D).

\r\n

[CN 5] Finally, the order may direct that before filing a motion for an order relating to discovery the movant must request a conference with the court. Many judges who hold such conferences find them an efficient way to resolve most discovery disputes without the delay and burdens attending a formal motion, but the decision whether to require such conferences is left to the discretion of the judge in each case.

\r\n


\r\n

Complete Amended Rule 16

\r\n

\r\n

Rule 16. Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

\r\n

(a) Purposes of a Pretrial Conference. In any action, the court may order the attorneys and any unrepresented parties to appear for one or more pretrial conferences for such purposes as:

\r\n

(1) expediting disposition of the action;

\r\n

(2) establishing early and continuing control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of management;

\r\n

(3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities;

\r\n

(4) improving the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation; and

\r\n

(5) facilitating settlement.

\r\n

(b) Scheduling.

\r\n

(1) Scheduling Order. Except in categories of actions exempted by local rule, the district judge — or a magistrate judge when authorized by local rule — must issue a scheduling order:

\r\n

(A) after receiving the parties’ report under Rule 26(f); or

\r\n

(B) after consulting with the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference by telephone, mail, or other means.[CN 1]

\r\n

(2) Time to Issue. The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but in any eventunless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 12090 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 9060 days after any defendant has appeared.[CN 2]

\r\n

(3) Contents of the Order.

\r\n

(A) Required Contents. The scheduling order must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.

\r\n

(B) Permitted Contents. The scheduling order may:

\r\n

(i) modify the timing of disclosures under Rules 26(a) and 26(e)(1);

\r\n

(ii) modify the extent of discovery;

\r\n

(iii) provide for disclosure, ordiscovery, or preservation of electronically stored information;[CN 3]

\r\n

(iv) include any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material after information is produced, including agreements reached under Federal Rule of Evidence 502;[CN 4]

\r\n

(v) direct that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court;[CN 5]

\r\n

(vvi) set dates for pretrial conferences and for trial; and

\r\n

(vivii) include other appropriate matters.

\r\n

(4) Modifying a Schedule. A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.

\r\n

(c) Attendance and Matters for Consideration at a Pretrial Conference.

\r\n

(1) Attendance. A represented party must authorize at least one of its attorneys to make stipulations and admissions about all matters that can reasonably be anticipated for discussion at a pretrial conference. If appropriate, the court may require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by other means to consider possible settlement.

\r\n

(2) Matters for Consideration. At any pretrial conference, the court may consider and take appropriate action on the following matters:

\r\n

(A) formulating and simplifying the issues, and eliminating frivolous claims or defenses;

\r\n

(B) amending the pleadings if necessary or desirable;

\r\n

(C) obtaining admissions and stipulations about facts and documents to avoid unnecessary proof, and ruling in advance on the admissibility of evidence;

\r\n

(D) avoiding unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence, and limiting the use of testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702;

\r\n

(E) determining the appropriateness and timing of summary adjudication under Rule 56;

\r\n

(F) controlling and scheduling discovery, including orders affecting disclosures and discovery under Rule 26 and Rules 29 through 37;

\r\n

(G) identifying witnesses and documents, scheduling the filing and exchange of any pretrial briefs, and setting dates for further conferences and for trial;

\r\n

(H) referring matters to a magistrate judge or a master;

\r\n

(I) settling the case and using special procedures to assist in resolving the dispute when authorized by statute or local rule;

\r\n

(J) determining the form and content of the pretrial order;

\r\n

(K) disposing of pending motions;

\r\n

(L) adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems;

\r\n

(M) ordering a separate trial under Rule 42(b) of a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, third-party claim, or particular issue;

\r\n

(N) ordering the presentation of evidence early in the trial on a manageable issue that might, on the evidence, be the basis for a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) or a judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c);

\r\n

(O) establishing a reasonable limit on the time allowed to present evidence; and

\r\n

(P) facilitating in other ways the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.

\r\n

\r\n


\r\n

Additional Resources

\r\n[su_tabs]\r\n[su_tab title=”Articles“]

ArticleAuthorsPublication & DateRules Discussed
ArticleAuthorsPublication & DateRules Discussed
4 Times Federal Courts Already Applied the New FRCP Amendments in E-Discovery
(registration required)
Zach Warren, Legaltech NewsLegaltech News, March 2, 2016R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Changes in Federal Rules Result in Reversal of Adverse Inference Sanction: eDiscovery Case Law
Doug Austin (eDiscovery Daily)eDiscovery Daily, February 8, 2016R.37(e)
Preparing for FRCP Changes with EnCase eDiscovery
(registration required)
Guidance SoftwareGuidance Software, December 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Courts Are Starting to Apply and Interpret FRCP Amendments on e-DiscoveryJoshua M. Hummel (Fox Rothschild)The E-Discovery Stage, December 10, 2015R.26(b)(1)
IG And The New FRCP Rules
(registration required)
Jason R. Baron (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)Legaltech news, December 7, 2015R.37(e)
The 2015 Amendments: A Sensible Approach to Spoliation Sanctions?
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, December 4, 2015R.37(e)
The New Federal Rules Are Taking EffectEmily Dimond (Reed Smith)
Courtney Murphy (Reed Smith)
JD Supra Business Advisor, December 2, 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.34(b)(2)
R.37(e)
Everything You Need to Know About The New FRCP AmendmentsJeff Bennion (Estey & Bomberger LLP)Above the Law, December 1, 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Congratulations! Now what?Karin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, December 1, 2015R.26(f)
R.34
3 Ways FRCP Amendments Could Affect CompaniesRebekah Mintzer (Corporate Counsel)Corporate Counsel, December 1, 2015R.01
R.04
R.34
R.37
Discovery related amendments to the Federal Rules
(subscription required)
David J. Kessler (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Jami Mills Hibbert (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Alexander Steven Altman (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Norton Rose Fulbright website, December 1, 2015R.01
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(c)
R.34(2)(A)
R.34(2)(B)
R.34(2)(C)
R.37(e)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Ediscovery
Guide

(download)
Kroll OntrackDecember 2015R.01
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
FRCP Amendments Take Effect, Impacting E-Discovery Practice
(registration required)
H. Christopher Boehning (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
Daniel J. Toal (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Ross M. Gotler)
Lidia M. Kekis (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
New York Law Journal, December 1, 2015R.01
R.26
R.37
Early and Often
(download)
Salvatore Mancuso (RVM Enterprises, Inc.)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)(A)
R.16(b)(1)(B)
R.16(b)(2)(B)
R.26(f)
Gear Up for Acceleration and Collaboration
(download)
Mark E. McGrath (Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(v)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(f)
R.34
Changes Favor Well-Prepared Parties
(download)
Tom Spaulding (Inventus LLC)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.16(b)(1)(B)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(v)
R.26(f)
Getting to the Heart of the Matter
(download)
Aaron Pierce (LexisNexis Litigation Software)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
Proportion – Not Perfection
(download)
Makenzie Windfelder (McCarter & English LLP)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.37(e)
No Time to Relax
(download)
Olivia Gerroll (D4, LLC)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.37(e)
The Real Problem: Technology
(download)
Dan Regard (iDiscovery Solutions)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11
Proportionality: Old Wine, New Bottle?
(download)
Anthony M. Candido (Clifford Chance LLP)
Sarah A. Sulkowski (Clifford Chance LLP)
Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(C)(iii)
Insofar As Just and Practicable
(download)
Mark Euler (Epiq Systems)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11
A Discovery Sideshow?
(download)
Maureen O’Neill (DiscoverReady)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(C)
R.26(f)
Low Pro le, High Impact
(download)
Aarin Scholz Jenson (BakerHostetler)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(f)
R.34(2)(B)
Relief from ESI Over-Preservation
(download)
Carmen G. McLean (Jones Day)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
Conclusion: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Are you Ready?Karin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 30, 2015
Important Changes to the Federal RulesAlexander Rothschild (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP)
Louis Rousseau (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP)
JD Supra Business Advisor, November 30, 2015R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1(B)
R.16(b)(2)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(f)(3)(C)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
ESI & eDiscovery FRCP changes @ 12/1/15 — while you were leftover-eatingRobert D. Brownstone (Fenwick & West LLP)Lexology, November 29, 2015R.04(m)
R.16(b)
R.16(c)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(c)
R.26(d)
R.26(f)
R.34(b)
R.37(e)
Amendments to Federal Civil Rules Governing Discovery and Preservation of ESI Set to Take Effect December 1, 2015Tony Lathrop (Moore & Van Allen PLLC)JD Supra Business Advisor Litigation Blog, November 25, 2015R.01
R.04
R.04(d)
R.16
R.26
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.36
R.37(a)
R.37(e)
R.55(c)
R.84
Day 4: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 34 ObjectionsKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 25, 2015R.34
Day 3: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – PreservationKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 24, 2015R.16
R.26
R.37(e)
ACEDS Interview: Judge Paul Grimm Explains the New Federal RulesJason KrauseACEDS website, November 24, 2015R.16
R.26
Day 2: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Early Case AssessmentKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 23, 2015R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
Day 1: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – ProportionalityKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 20, 2015R.26
Wait, What Does Spoliation Mean Now? A Look at the New FRCP Rule 37(e)
(subscription required)
Zach Warren (Legaltech News)Legaltech News, November 17, 2015R.37(e)
A Second Look At “Reasonable Steps”: A New Role For a Familiar eDiscovery ConceptThomas Y. AllmanBloomberg Law, November 13, 2015R.16
R.26(b)
R.37(e)
Proportionality and the Scope of Discovery in 2015 Amendments
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, November 6, 2015R.26(b)(1)
A New Era of Cooperation for E-Discovery Rules?
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, October 9, 2015R.01
The 2015 Civil Rules Package As Transmitted to CongressThomas Y. AllmanDefense Counsel Journal, October 2015R.01
R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(iii)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(B)
R.26(b)(2)(C)(iii)
R.26(c)
R.26(c)(1)(B)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(d)(3)
R.26(f)
R.26(f)(3)(C)
R.26(f)(3)(D)
R.26(g)
R.30
R.30(a)(2)
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.34(b)(2)(A)
R.34(b)(2)(B)
R.34(b)(2)(C)
R.36
R.37(a)(3)(B)(iv)
R.37(b)(2)(A)
R.37(e)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
R.55(c)
Issuing Timely Litigation Holds in Auto-Delete Environments: The Case Law and the New F.R.C.P. 37
(download)
Anne Kershaw (Knowledge Strategy Solutions)
Brian Ramkissoon
August 11, 2015R.37(e)
Just Follow the Rules! FRCP amendments could be e-discovery game changer
(download)
Jennifer A. Brennan (iDiscovery Solutions)
John M. Facciola (Retired U.S. Magistrate Judge)
Mary M. Rowland (U.S. Magistrate Judge, Northern District of Illinois)
Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, July/August 2015R.16
R.26(b)
R.34
R.37(e)
New Rules, New Opportunities
(download)
David G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 18–25R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
R.84
The Nuts and Bolts
(download)
David F. Levi (Duke Law School)
David G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)
John G. Koetl (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York)
Chilton Varner (King & Spalding)
Derek P. Pullan (Judge, Utah Fourth Judicial District)
99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 26-34R.16
R.26
R.37
R.84
Rule 37(e) - The New Law of Electronic Spoliation
(download)
Gregory P. Joseph (Hage Aaronson LLC)99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 35-42R.37
From Rule Text to Reality - Achieving Proportionality in Practice
(download)
Lee H. Rosenthal (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Texas)
Steven S. Gensler (University of Oklahoma College of Law)
99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 43-46R.01
R.16
R.26
R.34
Guidelines and Practices for Implementing the 2015 Discovery Amendments to Achieve Proportionality
(download)
Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 47–60R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
The New ESI Sanctions Framework Under the Proposed Rule 37(e) AmendmentsPhilip Favro (Recommind)Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, Volume XXI, Issue 3, March 20, 2015R.37(e)
The 2015 Civil Rules Package As Approved By the Judicial ConferenceThomas Y. AllmanAmerican Bar Association, March 11, 2015R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.26(b)
R.26(c)
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.36
R.37
R.37(e)
1st Annual Federal Judges Survey: E-Discovery Best Practices & Trends
(download, registration required)
ExterroFebruary 2, 2015R.26(b)(1)
What Does the Future of E-Discovery Look Like Under the (soon to be) Updated FRCP? A ROUNDTABLE PANEL DISCUSSION
(download, registration required)
ExterroNovember 3, 2014
Advisory Committee Makes Unexpected Changes to 37(e), Approves Duke PackageTera E. Brostoff (Bloomberg BNA)Bloomberg BNA, April 11, 2014R.37(e)
[/su_tab]\r\n[su_tab title=”Conferences“]
ConferenceDate & LocationSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
ConferenceDate & LocationSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
K&L Gates, Federal Rule Changes Affect e-Discovery - Are You Ready This Time? (Pittsburgh)
(registration required)
December 3, 2015, 8:30 am - 12:15 pm Eastern, Pittsburgh
K&L Gates, Federal Rule Changes Affect e-Discovery - Are You Ready This Time? (Seattle)
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 5:30 pm Pacific, Seattle
The American Bar Association Section of Litigation and the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, Hello “Proportionality,” Goodbye “Reasonably Calculated”: Reinventing Case Management and Discovery Under the ​2015 Civil Rules Amendments
(registration & payment required)
Nov. 10, 2015: New York City
Nov. 12, 2015: Philadelphia
Nov. 12, 2015: Newark
Dec. 3, 2015: St. Louis
Dec. 4, 2015: Atlanta
Dec. 7, 2015: Chicago
Dec. 8, 2015: Washington, DC
Jan. 27, 2016: Los Angeles
Jan. 28, 2016: San Francisco
March 3, 2016: Phoenix
March 4, 2016: Denver
March 31, 2016: Dallas
TBD: Miami
Lee H. Rosenthal (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Texas)
Steven S. Gensler (University of Oklahoma College of Law)
[/su_tab]\r\n[su_tab title=”Decisions“]
NameRules Discussed
NameRules Discussed
INTERNMATCH, INC. v. NXTBIGTHING, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-05438-JST. (N.D.CA. Feb. 8, 2016)R.37(e)
Kissing Camels Surgery Center v. Centura Health Corporation (D. Colo., Jan. 22, 2016)R.34
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med. Inc., No. 13cv2077 BTM(RBB) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016)R.37(e)
Gilead Sciences v. Merck (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016)R.26(b)(1)
CAT3 v. Black Lineage (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016)R.37(e)
[/su_tab]\r\n[su_tab title=”Presentations“]
PresentationAuthorRules Discussed
PresentationAuthorRules Discussed
Proposed Civil Rules Amendments
(download)
John Barkett (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.)R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
R.84
[/su_tab]\r\n[su_tab title=”Webinars“]
WebinarDateSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
WebinarDateSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
Clear Law Institute webinar, The 2015 Amendments to the FRCP, Part II: Rule 26, Proportionality, Judicial Intervention, and Mastering the Discovery Juggernaut
(registration & payment required)
January 21, 2016, 12:00 - 1:30 pm CentralKenneth R. Berman, Moderator (Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP)
Charles R. Bennett Jr.
John G. Koeltl (Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York)
Martha Mazzone (Fidelity Investments)
Carmen G McLean
R.26(f)
Clear Law Institute webinar, New eDiscovery Federal Rules Changes
(registration & payment required)
December 18, 2015, 2:00 - 3:15 pm CentralRobert D. Brownstone (Fenwick & West LLP)R.26
R.26(f)
R.37(e)
Bloomberg BNA webinar, An Ounce of Prevention: What Patent Litigators and Litigants Need to Know About Amendments to the Federal Rules
(registration & payment required)
December 16, 2015, 10:00 - 11:00 am CentralWilliam Cory Spence (SpencePC)
Kenneth R. Adamo (Kirkland & Ellis LLP)
Bloomberg BNA webinar, Amending the Federal Rules: Intended and Unintended Consequences
(registration required)
December 8, 2015, 12:00 - 1:30 pm CentralRonald Hedges (Ronald J. Hedges LLC)
Craig B. Shaffer (U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Colorado)
Thomas Y. Allman (University of Cincinnati College of Law)
Kenneth J. Withers (The Sedona Conference)
Dena C. Sharp (Girard Gibbs LLP)
Ariana J. Tadler (Milberg LLP)
Nextpoint webinar, Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Winter '15)
(registration required)
December 3, 2015, 1:30 - 2:00 pm CentralJulianne Walsh (Nextpoint)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, 3 E-Discovery Trends You Need to Prepare for in 2016
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 4:30 - 5:30 pm CentralBill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Patrick Fuller (Director of Legal Analytics, ELM Solutions)
David Houlihan (Principal Analyst, Blue Hill Research)
EDRM E-Discovery Day webinar, Using Advanced Analytics Techniques to Meet the Proportionality Requirements of the new Federal Rules
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 3:00 - 4:00 pm CentralBob Ambrogi (Legal Journalist and Director of Communications, Catalyst)
George Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
John Tredennick (Founder & CEO, Catalyst)
Gabe Luchetta (Product Manager, Catalyst)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Make Your Job Easier with
E-Discovery Technology

(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 3:00 - 4:00 pm CentralDavid Yerich (Director of E-Discovery, UnitedHealth Group)
Tom Mullane (E-Discovery Specialist, United Technology Corporation)
Tara Jones (Lead Paralegal - E-Discovery and Consumer Litigation, AOL, Inc.)
M. Lee Smith Publishers/BLR E-Discovery Day webinar, Amendments to Federal E-Discovery Rules Take Effect December 1: Are You Ready?
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 2:00 - 3:00 pm CentralTom Shaw (Assistant General Counsel; Legal Department, CCA Facility Support Center, Nashville)
W. Russell Taber, III (Attorney; Riley Warnock & Jacobson PLC, in Nashville)
EDRM E-Discovery Day webinar, eMSAT-1: Understand and Acting on the Results
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 2:30 pm CentralGeorge Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Tom Gelbmann (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Tiana Van Dyk (Litigation Support Manager, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Predictive Coding 3.0
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 2:00 pm CentralRalph Losey (E-Discovery Blogger / Attorney, e-Discovery Team Blog)
Actiance E-Discovery Day webinar, FRCP Changes: What, Exactly, are Reasonable Steps to Preserve ESI?
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:00 - 2:00 pm CentralRobert A. Cruz (Senior Director of Information Governance, Actiance, Inc.)
Bill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Taking Advantage of the New FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 12:00 - 1:00 pm CentralGeorge Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Craig Ball (Attorney / E-Discovery Blogger, Ball in Your Court Blog)
Hon. Xavier Rodriguez (District Judge, Western District of Texas)
Actiance E-Discovery Day webinar, A Closer Look at Social Media eDiscovery
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 11:30 am - 12:30 pm CentralJim Shook (Director of eDiscovery and Compliance Practice, EMC)
Bill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, 2015 E-Discovery Case Law: Sanction Cases You Need to Know
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 10:30 - 11:30 am CentralHon. Joy Conti (Chief District Judge, Western District of Pennsylvania)
Gareth Evans (Co-Chair E-Discovery Practice Group, Gibson Dunn)
Bob Rohlf (General Counsel, Exterro)
ABA webinar, The December 1, 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(registration & payment required)
November 23, 2015, 12:00 - 1:00 pm CentralDavid G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)
John G. Koetl (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York)
Paul W. Grimm (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Maryland)
EDRM webinar, Proportionality and the New Rules, sponsored by LexisNexis
(on-demand, registration required)
Recorded October 27, 2015John Barkett (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP)
George Socha (EDRM)
Tom Gelbmann (EDRM)
R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.37
R.84
EDRM webinar, Relativity Fest 2015 Judicial Panel
(on-demand, registration required)
October 12, 2015Judge Nora Barry Fischer
Judge Andrew Peck
Judge Xavier Rodriguez
Judge David Waxse
David Horrigan (moderator)
[/su_tab]\r\n[/su_tabs]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email