Case 3:17-cv-02692-S Document 17 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID 240

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

BRUCE JOINER, §
§
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No. 3:17-cv-02692
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Defendant. §
§

JOINT CONFERENCE REPORT AND PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

As required by this Court and Rule 26(f), the parties file their Joint Conference Report and
Proposed Scheduling Order as follows:
Counsel for the parties conducted the Joint Rule 26(f) conference on January 26, 2018, by
telephone conference. Trenton Roberts participated for the Plaintiff; Phil MacWilliams
participated for Defendant.
Plaintiff and Defendant have opposing views on many of the below items, thus they ask
the Court to refer to question number 19, which captures each party's overall positions in
abbreviated form.
1. Brief Statement of claims and defenses.
Plaintiff’s position: Defendant negligently and/or intentionally injured Plaintiff or while
acting in concert with others did so, resulting in physical and mental/emotional damages.
Defendant’s position: Among other factual and legal defenses under applicable state law,
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a); the United States has not waived sovereign
immunity for claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act; and Plaintiff cannot establish the
elements of assault, negligence, or negligent infliction of emotional distress under Texas
law.
2. Proposed time limit to file motions for leave to join other parties.

1
Case 3:17-cv-02692-S Document 17 Filed 02/06/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID 241

Plaintiff’s position: All parties must be added and served, whether by amendment or third
party practice, by March 15, 2018. The party causing the joinder shall provide a copy of
this Scheduling Order at the time of service.
Defendant’s position: Thirty (30) days following resolution of motion to dismiss.
3. Proposed time limit to amend pleadings.
Plaintiff’s position: All amendments and supplements must be filed by August 20, 2018.
Defendant’s position: March 6, 2018.
4. Proposed time limit to file various types of motions.
Plaintiff’s position: All motions must be heard on or before October 1, 2018.
Defendant’s position: For dispositive motions, one-hundred twenty (120) days before trial,
and sixty (60) days following the close of expert discovery/one-hundred twenty (120) days
following the close of factual discovery (see paragraphs 5 and 6 below). For non-
dispositive motions, sixty (60) days before trial.
5. Proposed time limit for designation of experts
Plaintiff’s designation of experts.
Plaintiff’s position: Plaintiff shall designate experts on or before August 20, 2018.
Defendant’s position: One-hundred twenty (120) days following resolution of motion to
dismiss.
Defendant’s designation of experts.
Plaintiff’s position: Defendant shall designate experts on or before August 20, 2018.
Defendant’s position: One-hundred twenty (120) days following resolution of motion to
dismiss.
6. Proposed time limit for designation of rebuttal experts.
Plaintiff’s position: Defendants shall designate experts on or before September 24, 2018.
Defendant’s position: Sixty (60) days following designation of Plaintiff’s experts.
7. Proposed time limit for objections to experts.
Plaintiff’s position: On or before October 15, 2018, the parties shall file any types of
motions to object to experts.
Defendant’s position: Sixty (60) days before trial.
8. Proposed plan and schedule for discovery, a statement of the subjects
on which discovery may be needed, a time limit to complete factual
2
Case 3:17-cv-02692-S Document 17 Filed 02/06/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID 242

discovery and expert discovery, and a statement of whether discovery

should be conducted in phases or limited to particular issues.
Proposed Plan and Schedule for Discovery:
Plaintiff’s position: The parties will complete fact witness discovery of all parties on or
before September 24, 2018, unless agreed to by all the parties. All written discovery
requests shall be sent at least 35 days prior to this date. All expert discovery is to be
completed on or before October 15, 2018.
Defendant’s position: Discovery should not commence while the United States’ motion to
dismiss is pending.
Statement of the subjects on which discovery may be needed:
Plaintiff’s position: Discovery from Defendant regarding the shooting, the planning and
coordination of the undercover officers and terrorists involved, approvals related thereto,
and related communications.
Defendant’s position: Discovery from Plaintiff regarding the shooting incident and claimed
damages, including medical records relevant to claimed damages.
Time limit to complete factual discovery and expert discovery:
Plaintiff’s position: Factual and expert discovery to be completed by September 24, 2018.
Defendant’s position: Factual discovery to be completed two-hundred forty (240) days
following resolution of motion to dismiss. Expert discovery to be completed sixty (60)
days following close of factual discovery.
Whether discovery should be conducted in phases or limited to
particular issues:
Plaintiff’s position: No proposal regarding phased discovery.
Defendant’s position: No proposal regarding phased discovery.
9. What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or by local rule, and what other
limitations should be imposed.
Plaintiff’s position: None.
Defendant’s position: Discovery should not commence while the United States’ motion to
dismiss is pending.

3
Case 3:17-cv-02692-S Document 17 Filed 02/06/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID 243

10. Proposed means for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored

information (“ESI”) and a statement of any disputes regarding the disclosure
or discovery of ESI.
Plaintiff’s position: ESI discovery currently not anticipated. Plaintiff will provide
discovery order for the production and handing of any privileged information, if any.
Defendant’s position: The parties have not discussed production specifications in general,
or relating to specifically to ESI. The United States will draft a proposed Master Discovery
Order, which sets forth agreed protocols for discovery-related issues, including production
specifications and the handling and protection of privileged and sensitive materials. In the
event discovery proceeds in this action, the United States will send Plaintiff’s counsel a
proposed Master Discovery Order as soon as practicable for discussion and, thereafter,
filing with the Court.
11. Any proposals regarding the handling and protection of privileged or
trial-preparation material that should be reflected in a court order.
Plaintiff’s position: See position above at paragraph 10.
Defendant’s position: See position above at paragraph 10.
12. A proposed trial date, estimated number of days required for trial, and
whether a jury has been properly demanded.
Plaintiff’s position: Anticipated trial date is January 21, 2019 requiring 3 days for trial
and Plaintiff did not demand a jury trial.
Defendant’s position: One-hundred twenty (120) days following the dispositive motion
deadline. Plaintiff has not requested jury trial, which is not permitted in actions brought
under the FTCA. The estimated number of days for trial is three (3).
13. A proposed date for further settlement negotiations.
Plaintiff’s position: Plaintiff has expressed desire to settle, to receive an explanation of why
he was the subject of this attack and cover-up, and allow Plaintiff to move forward with
his life.
Defendant’s position: Settlement negotiations are not proposed at this time, given the
United States’ pending motion to dismiss.

4
Case 3:17-cv-02692-S Document 17 Filed 02/06/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID 244

14. Objections to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) asserted at the Scheduling

Conference, and other proposed modifications to the timing, form, or
requirements for disclosure under Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when
disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) were made or will be made.
Plaintiff’s position: The parties shall serve Rule 26 disclosures by February 18, 2018.
Defendant’s position: Initial disclosures should not be required while the United States’
motion to dismiss is pending. If the United States’ motion to dismiss is not granted, initial
disclosures should be made within twenty-one (21) days following resolution of motion to
dismiss.
15. Whether the parties will consent to trial (jury or non-jury) before a
U.S. Magistrate Judge.
The parties do not consent to trial before a U.S. Magistrate Judge.
16. Whether the parties are considering mediation or arbitration to resolve
this litigation and a statement of when alternative dispute resolution would be
most effective (e.g., before discovery, after limited discovery, after motions are
filed, etc.), and, if mediation is proposed, the name of any mediator the parties
jointly recommend to mediate the case.
Plaintiff’s position: No negotiations have taken place, despite being requested by Plaintiff.
Defendant’s position: Mediation or arbitration is not requested at this time. Mediation
would be most effective following discovery.
17. Any other proposals regarding scheduling and discovery that the
parties believe will facilitate expeditious and orderly preparation for trial.
At this time, the parties have no other proposals regarding scheduling and discovery.
18. Whether a conference with the Court is desired and the reasons for
requesting a conference.
At this time, the parties do not believe a conference with the Court is necessary.
19. Any other matters relevant to the status and disposition of this case,
including any other orders that should be entered by the Court under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 16(c), and 26(c).

5
 Case 3:17-cv-02692-S Document 17 Filed 02/06/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID 245

Plaintiff’s position: Prompt discovery consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
is particularly necessary in this case, in which Defendant has thus far controlled all
information-flow to Plaintiff, the media, and Congress.
Defendant’s position: The United States refers to and incorporates herein the position set
forth in its Motion for Relief From Order Requiring Scheduling Conference and Report
and For A Stay of Discovery (Dkt. ## 13, 14), asking this Court to abstain from entering a
scheduling order and to stay discovery until the issue of sovereign immunity raised in the
United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. ## 8, 9, 10) is
resolved. Furthermore, insofar as any protective order is necessary for any confidential or
sensitive information otherwise discoverable, the United States refers to its position stated
above in paragraphs 10 and 11.

Dated: February 6, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Trenton Roberts_____

Trenton Roberts
Partner at Roberts & Willie, PLLC
212 Suntide Drive
Sunnyvale, Texas, 75182
Telephone: (832) 328-7345
Email: Trenton@RobertsandWillie.com
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF

/s/ Phil MacWilliams

PHILIP D. MACWILLIAMS
Trial Attorney
E-mail: phil.macwilliams@usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Torts Branch
175 N Street, NE Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 616-4285
Facsimile: (202) 616-5200
Attorney for the United States of America

6
 Case 3:17-cv-02692-S Document 17 Filed 02/06/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID 246

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On February 6, 2018, I electronically submitted the foregoing Joint Conference Report and
Proposed Scheduling Order with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all
counsel of record electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 5(b)(2).

/s/ Trenton Roberts_____

Trenton Roberts
Partner at Roberts & Willie, PLLC
212 Suntide Drive
Sunnyvale, Texas, 75182
Telephone: (832) 328-7345
Email: Trenton@RobertsandWillie.com
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF