Filed: May 16, 2016
Latest Update: May 16, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATION TO FILE EVIDENTIARY RECORD IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT Re: Dkt. No. 145. MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . On November 3, 2015, the above-titled action, which at the time was brought on behalf of twenty-seven named plaintiffs, was reassigned to the undersigned. On November 13, 2015, in anticipation of a then impending deadline for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties filed a "Joint Stipulation to File Full Scope of Evidence t
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATION TO FILE EVIDENTIARY RECORD IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT Re: Dkt. No. 145. MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . On November 3, 2015, the above-titled action, which at the time was brought on behalf of twenty-seven named plaintiffs, was reassigned to the undersigned. On November 13, 2015, in anticipation of a then impending deadline for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties filed a "Joint Stipulation to File Full Scope of Evidence to..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATION TO FILE EVIDENTIARY RECORD IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
Re: Dkt. No. 145.
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
On November 3, 2015, the above-titled action, which at the time was brought on behalf of twenty-seven named plaintiffs, was reassigned to the undersigned. On November 13, 2015, in anticipation of a then impending deadline for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties filed a "Joint Stipulation to File Full Scope of Evidence to be Considered by the Court in Electronic Format" (hereinafter, "Stipulation"), by which the parties requested permission to file the evidentiary record on a "USB drive." (See Stipulation, filed Nov. 13, 2015, at 1:24.)
Thereafter, however, at the plaintiffs' request for relief from the above-referenced deadline, the Court vacated the briefing schedule, directed the parties to address whether the plaintiffs' claims should be severed (see Order, filed Nov. 20, 2015), and, on the parties' subsequent stipulation, granted severance of all remaining claims other than the single claim asserted by the first three named plaintiffs (see Order, filed Jan. 22, 2016).
Given that the circumstances since the filing of the Stipulation have markedly changed, the Stipulation is hereby DENIED without prejudice to renewal, if appropriate, at a later date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
