united states district court western district of oklahoma local civil ...

B. Reason for the Change
Paragraph 2: The change is stylistic, to conform the format to the questions
in Paragraphs 1 and 3. A similar change is proposed below in connection
with the final pretrial report. See infra p. 42.
Paragraph 3: The amendment would avoid confusion in the instructions to
counsel. A similar change is proposed below in connection with the final
pretrial report. See infra p. 42.
Paragraph 8(D): This provision should be changed to conform to the style
amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and correctly specify
the particular subsection under Rule 26(f)(3) which requires the parties
discuss issues relating to electronically stored information. In addition, for
technical accuracy, the phrase “as required by” should be changed to
“pursuant to.”
Paragraph 8(E):
The citation in Section 8(E) of the joint status report and discovery plan was
no longer correct after the style amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Therefore, the proposed change would correct the outdated
citation and refer lawyers to the subsection of Rule 26(f) which addresses
the parties’ obligation to discuss issues regarding claims of privilege or
protection.
The proposed language would provide a mechanism for parties who wish to
have their agreements memorialized in the court’s case management order
(or other order) to bring their agreements to the court’s attention. This is of
special significance since the recent passage of Federal Rule of Evidence
502. Under the new federal rule, an agreement regarding the procedure to
claim privilege/work-product protection after production is binding only on
the parties and will have no effect outside the federal action in which it was
made or on third parties unless the agreement is memorialized in a court
order. Fed. R. Evid. 502(e). The proposed revision in the local rule would
facilitate discussion at the status and scheduling conference. By requiring
the parties to submit a proposed order governing the procedures, the court
would have the option to include the agreement in the Rule 16(b) case
management order or to issue a separate order.
33