Lets think about why you REALLY REALLY should get an attorney for a federal matter.
Where I work does not allow first or second year attorneys litigate in federal court. There is a reason for that -- some federal judges give little leeway.
First, if it were me in federal court, on my own claims, I'd hire an attorney, and I have the benefit and wisdom and experience (a number of years and a number of trials) to know what I am doing.
Why would I do that?
1. Because I would lack the impartiality to pursue the matter like it needs to be pursued, to objectively evaluate the case, including both its strengths and weaknesses, to think about the pitfalls and to have the distance from the case to approach the other side without being combative.
2. Because you don't want to defend your own deposition, where you are thinking about both the questions asked and not being tripped up, and the legal objections to questions that might exist -- it is just too much for any one person.
3. Because you lose some credibility with a jury when you stand up and represent yourself, where you have to testify in the narrative without the aid of an attorney asking you questions and checking off to make sure the elements of the claims are met, and you set yourself up for both a directed verdict or summary judgment if you do a poor job in your deposition.
Lets talk about additional considerations for a pro se litigant that does not understand the legal system:
1. There are discovery pitfalls that might result in judgment for the other side.
2. Your strategy of burying the other side with frivolous paperwork can and will result in the imposition of sanctions that quite probably will result in the dismissal of the suit and a fine imposed by the federal judge -- those games will not work in federal court.
3. There is discovery to get through, which will include a thorough understanding of evidentiary admissibility rules, objections to discovery, responding to objections, timing, and the like.
4. There is dispositive (summary judgment) to get through, that will probably result in the dismissal of the suit (with prejudice) and your losing the case. That will also involve your ability to put forward competent, credible evidence to properly oppose their motion.
And if you survive all that:
You will then have to go through a trial, being aware of a number of things like the rules of evidence, the requirement to put on an opening statement comprised of facts, not argument, and to put on enough facts to meet every element of every claim you have made, the ability to put on competent evidence and be able to respond to the other side's objections, the ability to protect your case by objecting where appropriate, the ability to effectively cross examine their witnesses, and then you have to testify and again worry about both protecting yourself as a witness as well as dealing with the evidentiary issues.
In short, rmet's advice wasn't made to be sarcastic or biting -- it was made based on an understanding that no one should be representing themselves in federal court. I wouldn't represent myself in federal court -- and you should look to get an attorney if you hope to be successful.
I have NEVER seen a pro se litigant prevail in federal court and thats over about 20-30 cases. When I was in private practice, we'd put younger associates on pro se cases, because it was so easy pickings.
If that doesn't dissuade you, then all I can say is best of luck. As for your questions about the conference, read the local rules in the federal court you are in and see what it says about the 26(f) -- or call the clerk's office and see what the story is.
