EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. JBS USA, LLC, 8:10CV00318. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20141120d76
Filed: Nov. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER F. A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge. The Court has reviewed the parties' respective Rule 26(f) reports, and notes that the reports contain very different proposals regarding the progression schedule for Phase II of this litigation. These differences are largely attributable to Plaintiffs' desire to conduct limited "bellwether" discovery and trials. Having reviewed the matter, the Court rejects Plaintiffs' bellwether proposal as this procedure will not lend itself to an efficient adjudicatio
Summary: ORDER F. A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge. The Court has reviewed the parties' respective Rule 26(f) reports, and notes that the reports contain very different proposals regarding the progression schedule for Phase II of this litigation. These differences are largely attributable to Plaintiffs' desire to conduct limited "bellwether" discovery and trials. Having reviewed the matter, the Court rejects Plaintiffs' bellwether proposal as this procedure will not lend itself to an efficient adjudication..
More
ORDER
F. A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
The Court has reviewed the parties' respective Rule 26(f) reports, and notes that the reports contain very different proposals regarding the progression schedule for Phase II of this litigation. These differences are largely attributable to Plaintiffs' desire to conduct limited "bellwether" discovery and trials.
Having reviewed the matter, the Court rejects Plaintiffs' bellwether proposal as this procedure will not lend itself to an efficient adjudication of this action. Therefore, the Court will generally adopt Defendant's suggested progression schedule. However, because Plaintiffs have not responded to the specific dates set forth by Defendant in its report, the Court will order the parties to confer and submit a joint progression schedule.
In addition, although the parties were not clear as to whether they are interested in mediating this matter, the parties are advised that they are free to mediate this dispute at any time. However, the Court will not order, nor will it conduct, any such mediation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that by or before December 5, 2014, the parties shall meet and confer and jointly submit a revised Rule 26(f) report.
Source: Leagle
