Attorney Planning Meeting and Report, Scheduling Order, 
Initial Pretrial Scheduling Conference and Amendment to Schedule

As soon as practicable, counsel in a civil case should conduct an Attorney Planning Meeting under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). The Attorney Planning Meeting Report form should be completed and filed with the court promptly thereafter (and no later than 9 days in advance of any Initial Pretrial (IPT) Scheduling Conference). A draft Proposed Scheduling Order in word processing format should be simultaneously submitted via e-mail as described later with the exception of Judge Jenkins and Judge Sam. (Judge Jenkins and Judge Sam handle their own civil scheduling.)

The standard forms on the court's web site should be used.  Consult the web site to obtain the most recent forms.  

Attorney Planning Meeting Form
Also download and submit Proposed Scheduling Order (below)
PDF (10/30/2013) WPD (10/30/2013)
WORD (10/30/2013)

Proposed Scheduling Order

  WPD (10/30/2013)
WORD (10/30/2013)

Please use the Attorney Planning Meeting event in CM/ECF to docket the Attorney Planning Meeting Report form.

CM screen of Attorney Planning Meeting event

The draft Proposed Scheduling Order should be e-mailed to ipt@utd.uscourts.gov, unless the case is assigned to Judge Jenkins or Judge Sam, in which case the Proposed Order, with contents suitable to the case after the scheduling conference is held, should be emailed directly to Judge Jenkins or Judge Sam. In cases assigned to the remaining district judges, please use ipt@utd.uscourts.gov and do not use the email addresses used for other proposed orders. (See http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/judges/chambers_email.html for those other email addresses.)

The Attorney Planning Meeting may be filed and the proposed Scheduling Order may be submitted even if no IPT hearing is set. If the Attorney Planning Meeting report is complete and a proposed Scheduling Order is submitted, the court may enter the Scheduling Order. If the case is assigned to an active district judge, the Scheduling Order will be entered by a magistrate judge. Magistrate judge scheduling duties are independent of any referral in the case. See DUCivR 72-2(a)(5). If the parties cannot agree, either or both may file a motion to set scheduling.

Initial Pretrial (IPT) Scheduling Conferences are set under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and DUCivR 16-1 to ensure a civil case is scheduled. The IPT hearings for active district judges are assigned to Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse, who is assisted by Jennifer Stout at ipt@utd.uscourts.gov (801-524-6122). Judges Jenkins and Sam handle their own civil scheduling and IPT hearings and scheduling orders. The notice of Initial Pretrial Scheduling Conference will give the date and time of the hearing and the latest date by which the Attorney Planning Meeting Report should be filed and the Proposed Scheduling Order should be emailed to the court. That date will be about 9 days before the hearing.

If the stipulated Attorneys' Planning Meeting Report is timely filed and the draft Proposed Scheduling Order is timely received in the ipt@utd.uscourts.gov mailbox, a scheduling order may be entered before the IPT hearing and the hearing may be vacated. If the hearing has not been vacated, you must appear for the hearing.

Amendments to Schedule:  If a motion or stipulation is filed to request a change of scheduled dates, please consider whether the change will necessarily require a new trial date.  Generally, five months must be allowed between the dispositive motion deadline and the trial date to allow the motions to be filed, briefed, set, argued and decided before trial preparation starts.  A motion or stipulation that does not leave this amount of time will likely not be granted. 

The motion to amend should include the existing dates and the proposed dates. The party filing a motion, stipulated or not, to amend schedule should simultaneously email a new Proposed Scheduling Order directly to the judge the case is assigned to. If a case has both a Magistrate Judge and a District Court Judge, the party should send the new Proposed Scheduling order to the Magistrate Judge. (See Administrative Procedures II. G. 6. for those email addresses.) Even if the parties stipulated to the amendment, the motion must reflect good cause and/or excusable neglect for the extention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). If the amendment would set the trial more than three years after the date the plaintiff filed the case, the judge may hold a hearing and require participation of party representatives at that hearing to help determine whether good cause and/or excusable neglect exist to extend the schedule and therefore the case.

Submitting a combined "motion and order" to amend a scheduling order is improper.   DUCivR 10-1(a) provides:

Proposed orders submitted to the court must comply with DUCivR 54-1. Such orders must be prepared and submitted as separate documents, not attached to or included in motions or pleadings.

Telephone Appearance at IPT Hearings:  Counsel may, on advance request at least 10 days before the initial pretrial conference, arrange for appearance by telephone if there are distances to travel or conflicting schedules. For advance permission, contact Jennifer Stout ipt@utd.uscourts.gov (801-524-6122).  The party requesting the telephone appearance must handle all call arrangements on the day of the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Conference. That party must call other counsel before the date of the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Conference and give them the opportunity to appear telephonically, and on the day of the call, that party must connect all others before calling the court, so that all counsel are on the line before the call comes in to the court. 

Continuance of IPT hearing:  An IPT hearing will not be vacated automatically because a dispositive motion is pending.  A party seeking to delay the IPT because of a pending motion should file a motion and/or stipulation for continuance. After reviewing the motion/stipulation, the court will determine whether the IPT will be vacated. The filing of the motion or stipulation does not automatically guarantee that the IPT will be vacated.

Rev. 11/08/2013