Case 3:11-cv-02003-DRD Document 25

Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO BEFORE HONORABLE DANIEL R. DOMNGUEZ MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS DATE: October 24, 2012 CIVIL NO.: 11-2003(DRD) Began: 6:13 PM LAW CLERK: Jonathan Drucker Ended: 6:35 PM ========================================================================= Dario E. Roman-Rivera, et al., Plaintiffs Represented by: John E. Mudd v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, et al., Defendants Represented by: James W. McCartney ========================================================================= An Initial Scheduling Conference was held today. The Conference began at 6:13 PM and ended at 6:35 PM. At the outset of the Conference, the Court was informed that PREPA has yet to file an answer in the instant matter. The Court ordered that PREPA file its answer within the next fifteen days. In consultation with the parties, the Court set the following case management deadlines: Friday, November 23, 2012: deadline for Defendants to file a motion for reconsideration on the Courts September 25, 2012 Opinion and Order (Docket No. 20); Monday, February 11, 2013: cutoff deadline for discovery related to class certification; Monday, February 18, 2013: deadline for Plaintiffs motion requesting class certification; Monday, February 25, 2013: deadline for Defendants opposition to class certification; Friday, March 1, 2013: HEARING regarding class certification at 4:00 PM in Courtroom 4 of the Jos V. Toledo U.S. Post Office & Courthouse in Old San Juan; Monday, July 15, 2013: the discovery cut off date by which all discovery, including depositions, must be completed; Monday, July 29, 2013: Settlement Conference at 5:00 PM in Judge Domnguez Chambers; Monday, August 19, 2013: deadline for filing any dispositive motions; and lastly Monday, September 23, 2013: deadline for filing any opposition to any dispositive

Case 3:11-cv-02003-DRD Document 25

Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 3

motions. The Court maintains that the above timetable is more than adequate to complete all the necessary discovery in the instant case and the Court noted that the parties agreed to these case management deadlines. Thus, absolutely no extensions will be granted in order to maintain a level playing field amongst all the litigants. Additionally, the Court authorized the parties to file replies and sur-replies to the dispositive motions if the parties are not merely rehashing a previously made argument. However, those filings must be in strict compliance with the time limits and page constraints imposed by the Local Rules. The Court also noted that case management deadlines are obligatory and failure to comply with them may and, indeed, shall, lead to severe sanctions, including dismissal of the case or exclusion of expert witnesses. See Vazquez-Rijos v. Anhang, 654 F.3d 122, 127 (1st Cir. 2011) (In order to operate effectively and administer justice properly, courts must have the leeway to establish orderly processes and manage their own affairs. As such, trial courts have substantial authority to impose sanctions, including dismissal, against a party for noncompliance with various procedural rules and court orders.)(internal quotations and citations omitted); Malot v. Dorado Beach Cottages Assocs., 478 F.3d 40, 43 (1st Cir. 2007)(Claims that a court has abused its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to adhere to discovery orders or for failure to prosecute have not received a sympathetic ear from us.) (quoting Damiani v. R.I. Hosp., 704 F.2d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1983)); see also Vallejo v. Santini-Padilla 607 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2010)(noting that no notice regarding the imposition of dismissal as a sanction is necessary prior to the imposition of that sanction). The Court stated that the Court will not micro-manage the discovery process and expects the litigants to maturely resolve discovery disputes amongst themselves as experienced counsel. The Court reminded the parties that no discovery related motions will be entertained by the Court, except by prior exhaustion of Local Rule 26 (which Judge Domnguez interprets, and orders, to include a mandatory face-to-face meeting and the exchange of letters outlining the dispute after the parties have conferred in person). Should a disagreement arise that requires an immediate resolution (for example, in the midst of a deposition), then the parties are to call the law clerk assigned to the instant case at (787) 772-3160. Judge Domnguez will resolve the matter immediately over the telephone and utilize the court report present at the deposition; should Judge Domnguez be unavailable, the matter may be referred to a Magistrate who will similarly resolve the controversy over the telephone. For less urgent discovery disputes where no agreement is reached by the parties, then the litigants

Case 3:11-cv-02003-DRD Document 25

Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 3

are directed to call Chambers and inform the law clerk of the nature of the dispute. Judge Domnguez will try to reach the parties within forty-eight (48) hours of their call to resolve the matter (the parties may request a transcript and the District Judge will issue a Minute of Proceedings as to the issue, the position of the parties, their respective required Rule 26 written submittals as to the disputed discovery matter and the resolution of the matter). However, if the parties telephone call has not been returned by Judge Domnguez within five (5) days after said call to the assigned law clerk, only then, shall the parties be authorized to file a discovery related motion with the Court. During said period of time, the parties are to seriously and maturely examine discovery related disputes and attempt to solve the matter themselves. The Court shall set an evidentiary hearing should the Court determine that such a hearing is prudent. The Court shall not hesitate to impose sanctions should obstinacy be present as to the discovery issue. Lastly, the Court encouraged the parties to initiate and maintain a continued dialogue regarding a possible settlement throughout the discovery and dispositive motion phases of this litigation. To encourage a settlement, the Court set a Settlement Conference, as previously mentioned, for Monday, July 29, 2013 at 5:00 PM in Judge Domnguez Chambers in Old San Juan. At which time, the Court orders that all litigants with decision-making authority regarding settlement offers to be physically present at the conference or to be available by telephone. Additionally, in order to better facilitate a productive settlement discussion, the Court hereby orders that the parties meet and confer IN PERSON regarding a potential extra-judicial resolution to these proceedings at least ten days prior to the scheduled conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 24th day of October, 2012. /s/ DANIEL R. DOMNGUEZ DANIEL R. DOMNGUEZ U.S. District Judge