Filed: Feb. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: LETTER TO COUNSEL STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER , District Judge . RE: Brightview Group, LP v. Teeters, et al.; Dear Counsel: This letter serves to address two additional logistical matters in this case. First, as the parties have noticed, the Court's Memorandum Opinion issued today, February 21, 2020, was filed under seal. Counsel are DIRECTED to confer and provide the Court with proposed redactions on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 28, 2020, so that the Court may file a public version
Summary: LETTER TO COUNSEL STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER , District Judge . RE: Brightview Group, LP v. Teeters, et al.; Dear Counsel: This letter serves to address two additional logistical matters in this case. First, as the parties have noticed, the Court's Memorandum Opinion issued today, February 21, 2020, was filed under seal. Counsel are DIRECTED to confer and provide the Court with proposed redactions on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 28, 2020, so that the Court may file a public version...
More
LETTER TO COUNSEL
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER, District Judge.
RE: Brightview Group, LP v. Teeters, et al.;
Dear Counsel:
This letter serves to address two additional logistical matters in this case. First, as the parties have noticed, the Court's Memorandum Opinion issued today, February 21, 2020, was filed under seal. Counsel are DIRECTED to confer and provide the Court with proposed redactions on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 28, 2020, so that the Court may file a public version.
Second, Brightview's Motion for Scheduling Order remains pending. ECF 83. Defendants opposed the Motion on February 20, 2020, ECF 89, citing the fact that the Court's ruling on the Injunction Motion remained pending. With the Court's ruling on the Injunction Motion complete, the case is now ready for full merits discovery. Accordingly, Brightview's Motion for a Scheduling Order, ECF 83, will be GRANTED.
Brightview's proposed schedule contemplated a discovery period of approximately seven months. ECF 83 at 1. This differs from the Court's typical scheduling order, which provides for a discovery period of approximately four months. The Court discerns no reason, at this stage, to diverge from that practice, particularly because some limited discovery has already taken place. Thus, the Court hereby ENTERS the attached standard Scheduling Order. If the parties feel that any further amendment of the Scheduling Order is necessary, they should confer to reach an agreement and, if necessary, file an appropriate motion by the relevant deadline.
As a final note, Defendants' Opposition contains a request for the Court to hold a scheduling conference to address, inter alia, "the scope of remaining discovery." See ECF 89 at 2-4. At this juncture, the request is premature. Should the parties reach a point where they cannot agree whether a particular discovery request falls within the scope of discovery permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), they should consult Local Rules 104.7 and 104.8 for the appropriate process to seek resolution of the issue.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an Opinion and docketed as an Order.
