Attorneys, their clients, and unrepresented parties shall endeavor in good faith to agree on all the schedules contemplated by this rule and courts shall consider such agreements in the establishment of any such schedule.
Ohio. Civ.R. 16
Staff Note (July 1, 2022)
Conferences pursuant to this rule may be held by physical or remote presence, in the discretion of the presiding judicial officer.
Staff Note (July 1, 2008 Amendment)
New subsections (8) and (9) are added to clarify that issues relating to discovery of documents and electronically stored information are appropriate topics for discussion and resolution during pretrial conferences. Other linguistic changes, including those made to the subsections (7), (11) and (12) and to the final paragraph of Rule 16, are stylistic rather than substantive.
Staff Note (July 1, 2020 Amendment)
Civ. R. 16 has been amended to bring the Ohio rule closer to the federal rule, while still allowing for Ohio courts to decide whether to hold a scheduling conference. Civ. R. 16(A) lists several purposes for why a scheduling conference may be held. In addition, the last paragraph of Civ. R. 16(A) provides that parties will attempt to agree on the schedules contemplated by Civ. R. 16, and courts will endeavor to respect the agreements of the parties. This paragraph is consistent with the concept of shared responsibility among parties and courts in Civ. R. 1.
Similar to the prior version of Civ. R. 16, Civ. R. 16(A) still provides that holding a scheduling conference is permissive, not mandatory. However, Civ. R. 16(B) requires that in all cases, except those set forth in Civ. R. 1(C), a scheduling order must be issued by the court. The purpose of this requirement is to promote greater consistency, predictability, and transparency for attorneys, parties, and unrepresented parties in courts across Ohio.
Civ. R. 16(B)(1) clarifies that a scheduling order must be issued after the court receives the parties' Civ. R. 26(F) report or after the court holds a scheduling conference. If no report is submitted or the court does not hold a scheduling conference, the court must issue the scheduling order sua sponte.
Civ. R. 16(B)(2) specifies the timing requirements by which a scheduling order must be issued, based on the date that any defendant has been served with the complaint or that any defendant has responded to the complaint. This subsection does not require a court to wait for all defendants to be served with the complaint or respond to the complaint before entering a scheduling order.
Civ. R. 16(B)(3) lists potential content that a court may include in a scheduling order.
Civ. R. 16(C) describes a variety of items that a court may address at a scheduling conference, including a timetable to address deadlines for discovery and various disclosures, dispositive motions, and trial. Many of the items now listed in Civ. R. 16(C) were included in the prior version of Civ. R. 16.
Civ. R. 16(E) and (F) are identical to these same subsections in the federal rule.