Posey v. Navajo Express Inc., 19-CV-3341 (JPO). (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20191205d65
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN , District Judge . On September 27, 2019, the parties in this case advised the Court that they would require additional time to complete discovery if mediation were unsuccessful in resolving the matter. (Dkt. No. 11.) On November 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter 1 informing the Court that mediation had been unsuccessful and requesting that the remaining discovery deadlines be extended, or, in the alternative, that a conference be scheduled to discuss discover
Summary: ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN , District Judge . On September 27, 2019, the parties in this case advised the Court that they would require additional time to complete discovery if mediation were unsuccessful in resolving the matter. (Dkt. No. 11.) On November 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter 1 informing the Court that mediation had been unsuccessful and requesting that the remaining discovery deadlines be extended, or, in the alternative, that a conference be scheduled to discuss discovery..
More
ORDER
J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge.
On September 27, 2019, the parties in this case advised the Court that they would require additional time to complete discovery if mediation were unsuccessful in resolving the matter. (Dkt. No. 11.) On November 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter1 informing the Court that mediation had been unsuccessful and requesting that the remaining discovery deadlines be extended, or, in the alternative, that a conference be scheduled to discuss discovery deadlines. The parties did not propose specific extensions for the discovery deadlines.
The parties are directed to file a joint letter motion on or before December 11, 2019, proposing new dates for the deadlines they seek to extend. If the parties are unable to agree upon appropriate dates, they are directed to file a joint letter so stating.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The letter was erroneously addressed to Magistrate Judge Cave. Because the matter has not been referred to Magistrate Judge Cave, the letter should have been addressed to the Court.
Source: Leagle
