SHUFFIELD v. ASTRUE, 2:12-cv-00243-KJD-PAL. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120723726
Visitors: 21
Filed: Jul. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #13) that was filed July 6, 2012. However, just prior to Plaintiff filing his proposed scheduling order, the court filed its own Scheduling Order (Dkt. #12) on July 5, 2012. Plaintiff's proposed plan states that to the best of the parties' knowledge the administrative record is complete and accurate. However, the plan proposes longer deadlines for briefing Plaintiff's moti
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #13) that was filed July 6, 2012. However, just prior to Plaintiff filing his proposed scheduling order, the court filed its own Scheduling Order (Dkt. #12) on July 5, 2012. Plaintiff's proposed plan states that to the best of the parties' knowledge the administrative record is complete and accurate. However, the plan proposes longer deadlines for briefing Plaintiff's motio..
More
ORDER
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #13) that was filed July 6, 2012. However, just prior to Plaintiff filing his proposed scheduling order, the court filed its own Scheduling Order (Dkt. #12) on July 5, 2012. Plaintiff's proposed plan states that to the best of the parties' knowledge the administrative record is complete and accurate. However, the plan proposes longer deadlines for briefing Plaintiff's motion for reversal and/or remand. The court will grant Plaintiff's request for additional time. However, the parties shall comply with the substantive provisions of paragraphs 5 through 11 of the court's Scheduling Order (Dkt. #12).
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #13) is GRANTED to the extent the deadlines for filing and responding to a motion to remand and/or reversal are extended. However, the parties shall comply with the substantive provisions within the court's Scheduling Order (Dkt. #12, ¶¶5-11).
Source: Leagle
