Aerial view of Manhattan skyline at sunset, New York City

Discovery Plan

A Rule 26(f)(1) conference was held by counsel to the parties on ____. The parties have agreed to propose the following discovery plan to the Court.


Date this agreement is signed by the parties

The Parties may begin discovery pursuant to Rule 26(d)(1)

Two Weeks from Pre–Trial Conference

Initial Disclosures Due under Rule 26(a)

In the event that a party identifies a specific document and requests that it be produced as part of the initial disclosure, the opposing party will use best efforts to produce the document, if it is a proper request under Rule 26 and the party has possession or control of the document. Otherwise, the parties expect to identify documents as permitted under the Rule in their initial productions. The defendant(s) have agreed to produce any insurance policies which might cover the claims at issue or defense thereof, and any limitation on coverage asserted by any carrier responding to a request for coverage of the said claims.

Two Months from Pre–Trial Conference

Deadline for parties to amend pleadings and add parties

After this deadline the parties shall be governed by Rule 15(a)(2). Should an amended pleading be served on a party such party shall have 30 days to respond. The defendant represents that the defendants who have been named are correctly named.

Eight Months from Pre–Trial Conference

Fact Discovery Closes

Deadline for Plaintiff to Identify Experts Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(A)

Nine Months from Pre–Trial Conference

Dispositive Motions Are Due

Deadline for Defendant to Identify Experts Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(A)

Deadline for Plaintiff to Serve Materials Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

Ten Months from Pre–Trial Conference

Deadline for Defendant to Serve Materials Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

Eleven Months from Pre–Trial Conference

Expert Discovery Closes

Pre–Trial Disclosures Due under Rule 26(a)(3)

Subjects Upon Which Discovery Required and Whether Discovery Should be Conducted in Phases

In this hostile work environment case the parties anticipate that discovery will be required on liability and damages. Specifically, the parties will require discovery of witnesses and evidence pertaining to the alleged harassment and reporting to management of the harassment, the efficacy of the defendant's alleged anti–harassment policy, including discovery of the handling of prior incidents covered under the policy, discovery of witnesses to the plaintiff's damages, including friends, family and co–workers regarding emotional distress and expert discovery regarding psychiatric injury.

The parties agree that fact discovery should be completed prior to expert discovery, as set forth in the above schedule, to provide the parties with an opportunity to settle the dispute prior to incurring the costs of experts.

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)

The parties have agreed that ESI will be produced in its native format. That means that a document which was originally created as a Microsoft Word file or an Excel spreadsheet must be produced as a .doc or .xls file (or successor), without redaction of metadata. Emails will be produced in .msg or .pst file format. Emails shall be produced so that the full header is accessible and readable. Native paper documents will be produced as scanned .tif files.

Parties have agreed to produce their IT protocol on storage and overwriting of computer files and emails, if one exists.

The plaintiff intends to request a narrowly targeted search for all ESI communications containing search terms concerning inappropriate speech or conduct from/to the alleged harasser. The plaintiff also intends to request a narrowly targeted search for all ESI communications containing search terms to/from a small group of managers or supervisors who might have received or responded to complaints regarding the alleged harasser. The parties do not anticipate any disputes at this time relating to such a search.

Claims Of Privilege or of Protection as Trial–Preparation Materials

The parties agree that communications between counsel and experts pertaining to trial strategy shall not be discoverable (including through third party subpoena) and they will label communications with experts pertaining to trial strategy as "trial strategy" in order to indicate that they are not discoverable. Prior drafts of experts' opinions which have not been provided by the expert to third parties shall not be discoverable, however, any communications with experts containing drafts of opinions, including communications with counsel, shall be discoverable.

The parties agree to be bound by Federal Rule of Evidence 502, regarding the disclosure of privileged material or work product, even if the instant case was filed prior to the effective date, September 19, 2008.

Law Offices of Friedman & Houlding LLP
25 Senate Place
Larchmont, NY 10538
(212) 308–4338
Counsel for Plaintiff


Joshua Friedman
Rebecca Houlding
Daniela Nanau
Admitted Pro Hac Vice