Connect with us

Appellate Judges

Will McGlinchey Stafford Receive a Phone Call from Judge Albright’s Chambers to File for Attorney Fees?

The former magistrate judge knows the rules, but he decided to break the law and phone lawyers to remind them to file an affidavit for fees.

Published

on

Compton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

(6:21-cv-01292)

District Court, W.D. Texas

DEC 13, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 15, 2021

This case is continued on a second, follow-up article found HERE.

Notice of Removal by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER PURSUANT TO RULES 16(b) AND 26(f)

Jan. 18, 2022

Came for consideration the above-styled matter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and file with the Court, on Monday, February 7, 2022, both a joint proposed scheduling and discovery plan reflecting the Rule 26(f) criteria AND a completed version of the Court’s standard Scheduling Order.1

The parties or their counsel shall confer, complete and prepare the form, obtain the appropriate signatures, and e-mail the proposed scheduling order in Word format to

Melanie_Miller@txwd.uscourts.gov and Elizabeth_Gardner@txwd.uscourts.gov

(LIT Comment: related to Christina Gardner, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, perhaps?)

no later than the end of business, 5:00 pm on February 7, 2022.

During the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties or their counsel shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, the possibilities for prompt settlement or resolution of the case, and the scope and type of discovery, including electronic discovery.

The parties shall also arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and develop their joint proposed scheduling/discovery plan.

These are the minimum requirements for the meeting.

The parties are encouraged to have a comprehensive discussion and are required to approach the meeting cooperatively and in good faith.

The discussion of claims and defenses shall be a substantive, meaningful discussion.

In addressing settlement or early resolution of the case, the parties are required to explore the feasibility of ADR between themselves as well.

If the parties elect not to participate in an early ADR effort, the Court may nonetheless require a settlement conference shortly before trial.

In addressing the Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, the parties shall discuss the appropriate timing, form, scope or requirement of the initial disclosures, keeping in mind that Rule 26(a)(1) contemplates the disclosures will be made by the date of the Rule 16(b) initial scheduling conference and will include at least the categories of information listed in the rule.

Rule 26 affords the parties flexibility in the scope, form and timing of disclosures under both Rule 26(a)(1) (initial disclosures) and Rule 26(a)(2) (expert witness disclosures), but the parties’ agreement on disclosures is subject to approval by the undersigned.

In their discussion of disclosures, counsel shall address issues of relevance in detail, with each party identifying what it needs and why.

The discussion shall include the sequence and timing of follow-up discovery, including whether that discovery should be conducted informally or formally and whether it should be conducted in phases to prepare for filing of particular motions or for settlement discussions.

In addressing electronic discovery, the parties shall discuss what electronic sources each party will search, difficulty of retrieval, preservation of records, the form of production (electronic or hard-copy, format of production, inclusion of meta-data, etc.),

cost of production and which party will bear the cost, privilege/waiver issues, and any other electronic discovery issues present in the case.

Before engaging in the Rule 26 discussion, the parties should determine who is most familiar with the client’s computer system, what electronic records the client maintains, how the client’s electronic records are stored, the difficulty/ease of retrieving various records, the existence and terms of the client’s document retention/destruction policy, and whether the client has placed a “litigation hold” preventing destruction of potentially relevant records.

Finally, the Court ORDERS discovery disputes be resolved in the following manner:

(1) The parties will confer and fully comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2) and Local Rule AT-4(e) by undertaking sincere and good-faith efforts to resolve all differences without the undersigned’s action or intervention.

(2) If reasonable, good faith efforts are made by all parties to resolve the dispute(s) without success, the parties will then schedule a telephonic conference with the undersigned to resolve the disputes BEFORE filing any motion.

Filing a motion before exhaustion of these steps may result in summary denial of a compel motion.

(3) If the conference does not resolve the dispute, the Court will then entertain a motion to compel, for protective order, or for other relief.

The moving party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2) and Local Rule AT-4(e) in preparing such motion and will submit the appropriate certifications to the Court.

(4) The Court may refuse to hear any discovery motion for noncompliance with any of the above, including failure to make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.

The Court may also award costs and / or reasonable attorney’s fees for noncompliance with the above steps.

If a dispute arises in the limited situations where compliance with the above is unfeasible (for example, during a deposition), the parties may contact the undersigned’s chambers for an immediate conference on the dispute.

This should be considered an option of last resort.

The Court would also like to relay the following to the parties:

• 1. The Court has recently faced a spate of discovery objections that do not track the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules. Please remember that boilerplate objections are unacceptable.

• 2. In addition to tracking the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules, be sure to note the condition precedent in the Docket Control Order in this matter that requires a telephonic conference before filing a motion to compel.

• 3. Judge Manske is available during depositions if you feel a deponent is being evasive or his or her respective counsel is improperly objecting or invoking privilege.

Please call the Court if this is happening;

Judge Manske will resolve the matter and admonish the deponent to respond appropriately.

• 4. Judge Manske and Judge Albright are not opposed to counsel contacting their respective law clerks for matters of preference or non-substantive matters.

Both Judges’ clerks are well-trained on what is or isn’t a substantive matter and will refuse to communicate in an ex-parte manner on any substantive matters.

SIGNED this 18th day of January, 2022.

Judge Garder, errr,  Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske.

Dec 13, 2021: Case assigned to Judge Alan D Albright and REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske.

CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE

U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (Waco)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:21-cv-00678-ADA-JCM

U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. King et al
Assigned to: Judge Alan D Albright
Referred to: Judge Jeffrey C. Manske
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Date Filed: 06/28/2021
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
U.S. Bank Trust National Association
as Trustee of the Tiki Series IV Trust
represented by Crystal Gee Gibson
Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP
4004 Belt Line Road, Suite 100
Addison, TX 75001
(972) 386-5040
Fax: (972) 341-0734
Email: crystalR@bdfgroup.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Laura L. King
Defendant
Kenneth R King, Sr.
also known as
Kenneth R. King

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
06/28/2021 1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0542-14959516), filed by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of the Tiki Series IV Trust. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Robertson Co CAD, # 2 Exhibit B-Note, # 3 Exhibit C-Deed of Trust, # 4 Exhibit D-Assignments, # 5 Exhibit E-Notices of Default, # 6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gibson, Crystal) (Attachment 6 replaced on 6/28/2021) (lad). (Entered: 06/28/2021)
06/28/2021 2 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of the Tiki Series IV Trust. for Laura King and (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Request for Issuance for Kenneth King)(Gibson, Crystal) (Main Document 2 replaced on 6/28/2021) (lad). (Attachment 1 replaced on 6/28/2021) (lad). (Entered: 06/28/2021)
06/28/2021 All parties shall comply with the Standing Orders located at https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/judges-information/standing-orders/. (lad) (Entered: 06/28/2021)
06/28/2021 3 Summons Issued as to Laura L. King. (lad) (Entered: 06/28/2021)
06/28/2021 4 Summons Issued as to Kenneth R King, Sr.. (lad) (Entered: 06/28/2021)
06/28/2021 Case assigned to Judge Alan D Albright and REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE (lad) (Entered: 06/28/2021)
07/05/2021 5 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by U.S. Bank Trust National Association. (Gibson, Crystal) (Entered: 07/05/2021)

U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (Waco)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:19-cv-00702-ADA-JCM

Mellgren v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc
Assigned to: Judge Alan D Albright
Referred to: Judge Jeffrey C. Manske
Demand: $609,000

Case in other court:  66th District Court, Hill County, Texas, CV763-19DC

Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal – Foreclosure

Date Filed: 12/10/2019
Date Terminated: 10/13/2020
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Stephen Mellgren represented by Stephen D. Howen
The Law Office of Steven Howen
7111 Bosque Blvd., Suite 305
Waco, TX 76710
254-826-6526
Fax: 254-822-4956
Email: steve@stevehowenlegal.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Mortgage Servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia, N.A. as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2005-A represented by Eric C. Mettenbrink
Hirsch & Westheimer, PC
1415 Louisiana
36th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 220-9141
Fax: (713) 223-9319
Email: emettenbrink@hirschwest.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichael F. Hord , Jr.
Hirsch & Westheimer, PC
1415 Louisiana
36th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 223-5181
Fax: (713) 223-9319
Email: mhord@hirschwest.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
12/10/2019 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Mortgage Servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia, N.A. as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2005-A (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0542-12948323), filed by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Mortgage Servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia, N.A. as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2005-A. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit C-1, # 5 Exhibit C-2, # 6 Exhibit C-3, # 7 Exhibit C-4, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 10 Supplement Supplement to Civil Cover Sheet)(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
01/17/2020 2 DOCKET CONTROL ORDER PURSUANT TO RULES 16(b) AND 26(f): Initial pretrial conference set for 3/18/2020 01:30 PM before Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. Signed by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (lad) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
03/16/2020 3 Certificate of Interested Parties by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Mortgage Servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia, N.A. as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2005-A. (Hord, Michael) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
03/16/2020 4 Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Scheduling Order and Joint Discovery-Case Management Plan by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Mortgage Servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia, N.A. as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2005-A. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
03/17/2020 5 ORDER regarding Docket Control Conference. Signed by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (am) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
03/23/2020 6 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings and Joinder of Parties due by 4/17/2020. Consent to Trial by Magistrate due by 4/17/2020. Motions due by 9/18/2020. Pretrial Conference set for 12/17/2020 09:00 AM before Judge Alan D Albright, Jury Selection AND Jury Trial set for 12/17/2020 09:30 AM before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(am) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
03/24/2020 7 STANDING ORDER from U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright regarding scheduled civil hearings. (tada) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
04/17/2020 8 NON-CONSENT to Trial by US Magistrate Judge by Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Mortgage Servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia, N.A. as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2005-A. (Hord, Michael) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
10/12/2020 9 STIPULATION of Dismissal Without Prejudice by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Mortgage Servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia, N.A. as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2005-A. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 10/12/2020)
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Copyright © 2022 DBNTCO.com is an online brand name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware