Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

2-Way Computing, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2:15-cv-02230-GMN-(CWH). (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160516a47 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 12, 2016
Latest Update: May 12, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER (Second Request) CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff 2-Way Computing, Inc. ("2-Way") and Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Mobility II LLC (collectively, "ATTM") by and through their counsel, hereby file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Extend the Deadline to File Proposed Protective Order. This request complies with Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-1. The litigation of this matter will
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Second Request)

Plaintiff 2-Way Computing, Inc. ("2-Way") and Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Mobility II LLC (collectively, "ATTM") by and through their counsel, hereby file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Extend the Deadline to File Proposed Protective Order. This request complies with Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-1. The litigation of this matter will be best served by the proposed extension. This is the second request to extend this deadline. This request is not made after the deadline.

On April 26, 2016, the Court entered the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order in this matter, ECF No. 44, setting April 27, 2016 as the deadline for the parties to file a proposed protective order. On April 27, 2016, the parties submitted a stipulation for a two-week extension of the proposed protective order deadline to May 11, 2016, ECF No. 45, which the Court approved on April 28, 2016, ECF No. 46. The parties have made substantial progress toward an agreed protective order during that two-week period, but agree that an additional one-week extension, to May 18, 2016, will permit the parties time to resolve a few remaining issues so that the parties can present a minimal number of disputes, if any, regarding the proposed protective order to the Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this request to continue the deadline to file a proposed protective order.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer