Filed: Sep. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . On September 12, 2017 defendant was granted a continuance on discovery responses to September 28, 2017 in light of a pending Motion to Stay Proceedings that had been scheduled to be heard by the district judge on September 22, 2017. ECF No. 21. 1 On September 18, 2017, the Motion hearing was rescheduled to October 20, 2017. ECF No. 24. Four days after that rescheduling, the defendant filed another motion for stay seeking to delay his duty to re
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . On September 12, 2017 defendant was granted a continuance on discovery responses to September 28, 2017 in light of a pending Motion to Stay Proceedings that had been scheduled to be heard by the district judge on September 22, 2017. ECF No. 21. 1 On September 18, 2017, the Motion hearing was rescheduled to October 20, 2017. ECF No. 24. Four days after that rescheduling, the defendant filed another motion for stay seeking to delay his duty to res..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
On September 12, 2017 defendant was granted a continuance on discovery responses to September 28, 2017 in light of a pending Motion to Stay Proceedings that had been scheduled to be heard by the district judge on September 22, 2017. ECF No. 21.1 On September 18, 2017, the Motion hearing was rescheduled to October 20, 2017. ECF No. 24. Four days after that rescheduling, the defendant filed another motion for stay seeking to delay his duty to respond to discovery requests until after the newly scheduled stay hearing. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion on September 25, 2017. ECF No. 27.
The undersigned, having read the foregoing documents has concluded that a further stay, and/or continuance, is neither appropriate nor necessary to protect defendant's interests. As a result IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's request for relief from discovery deadlines is DENIED;
2. Defendant shall respond to the discovery that remains at issue no later than September 28, 2017 as previously ordered;
3. All other elements of the district court's Pretrial Scheduling Order entered on March 24, 2017 remain in full force and effect unless the district judge orders otherwise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. As part of the resolution of the motion, the parties stipulated to, and the court signed, a protective order that would then be in place when discovery was responded to on September 28, 2017. ECF No. 26.
