The parties in a case before Judge McMahon jointly wrote a letter seeking the Court’s “guidance” as to whether the agreed-upon Civil Case Management Plan the Court endorsed constituted the required “discovery plan” under Rule 26(f), which “must state the parties’ views and proposals” on various topics. The Plan apparently did not address every Rule 26(f) topic, which caused the lawyers to bill their clients to write the letter. Tuesday, Judge McMahon supplied the guidance sought by simply writing, “really? they are the same thing.” Prior Judge McMahon endorsements are here and here.