1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a meeting was held on June 11th, 2001, and was attended by:

Robert A. Neinast, Plaintiff pro se, and

Philomena M. Dane and Johnathan E. Sullivan, counsel for Defendants Board of Trustees of the Columbus Metropolitan Library, Larry Black, and Vonzell Johnson.

2. The parties:

	have exchanged the pre-discovery disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1).
X	will exchange such disclosures by August 10, 2001.
	are exempt from disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(E).
	have agreed not to make initial disclosures.

3. The parties:

	unanimously consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c).
X	do not unanimously consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c).

4. Recommended cut-off date for filing any motion to amend the pleadings and/or add additional parties: July 2, 2001

5. Recommended discovery plan:

a. Describe the subjects on which discovery is to be sought and the nature and extent of discovery that each party needs to: (1) make a settlement evaluation, (2) prepare for case dispositive motions and (3) prepare for trial:

The parties do not believe discovery is necessary to evaluate the case for settlement purposes or for purposes of preparing a motion for judgment on the pleadings (or a motion for summary judgment based on the law). In the event that either party feels that limited discovery will be useful in responding to the matters raised in Defendants' motion, the schedule below makes provisions for such limited discovery.

For trial, Plaintiff intends to seek discovery regarding the details of the incidents recounted in his Complaint, the names and addresses of all Library employees involved in thses incidents, copies of reports and other documentation of similar incidents, copies of reports and other documentation on all dates that Plaintiff used the library barefoot, meeting minutes and other information regarding the Library's policy requiring shoes, and the contents of any studies performed by the Library on the issues involved in this case. Defendants will seek discovery regarding Plaintiff's allegations and his claims for damages.

b. What changes should be made, if any, in the limitations on discovery imposed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules of this Court, including the limitations to 25 interrogatories/requests for admissions and the limitation of ten depositions, each lasting no more than one day consisting of seven (7) hours?

The parties have agreed to allow 40 interrogatories and 40 requests for admission each.

c. Additional recommended limitations on discovery:

Given the nature of this case, which will depend largely on the Court's resolution of matters of law, the parties have agreed, pending the Court's approval, to withhold discovery until after the Defendants have submitted either a motion for judgment on the pleadings (or, in the alternative, a summary judgment motion based solely on the law) and the Court has ruled on this motion. The parties have agreed to the following proposed schedule for the filing of this motion:

• July 2, 2001: Deadline to amend the pleading.
• August 2, 2001: Defendants will file their motion for judgment on the pleadings (or motion for summary judgment based on the law).
• September 2, 2001: If neither party feels that discovery regarding the matters raised in the motion is necessary, the Plaintiff will submit his memorandum in opposition to Defendant's motion.
• September 17, 2001: If either party feels that limited discovery regarding the matters raised in this motion is necessary, they will have until September 17, 2001 to complete discovery. At that time, Plaintiff will file his memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion.
• October 17, 2001: Defendants file their reply in support of dismissal (or summary judgment).

d. Describe the areas in which expert testimony is expected and indicate whether each expert will be specially retained within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).

Defendants currently do not anticipate the use of expert testimony; Plaintiff may seek the assistance of an expert on First Amendment constitutional law.

e. Recommended date for making primary expert designations:

The parties have agreed to refrain from recommending a date for making primary expert designations until resolution of the Defendant's motion.

f. Recommended date for making rebuttal expert designations:

The parties have agreed to refrain from recommending a date for making primary expert designations until resolution of the Defendants' motion.

g. Recommended discovery cut-off date:

The parties have agreed to refrain from recommending a discovery cut-off date until resolution of the Defendants' motion.

6. Recommended dispositive motion date:

The parties have agreed to refrain from recommending date for dispositive motions until resolution of the Defendants' motion.

7. Recommended date for a status conference:

In the event that the Court resolves the Defendants' motion in favor of Plaintiff, the parties have agreed to recommend that the Court hold a status conference fourteen (14) days after the its decision to set discovery deadlines and other dates.

8. Recommended date for a final pretrial conference:

9. Has a settlement demand been made?

A settlement demand has not been made. The parties have agreed to refrain from discussing a settlement demand until after resolution of the Defendants' motion.

10. The earliest Settlement Week referral reasonably likely to be productive:

Because the parties have agreed not to conduct their discovery until after the Court's decision regarding Defendants' motion, they cannot yet determine the earliest Settlement Week referral likely to be productive.

11. Other matters for the attention of the Court:

None