Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BRITAIN v. CLARK COUNTY, 2:12-cv-1240-JAD-NJK. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160929d83 Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2016
Summary: Order Re: Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 142] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . On September 14, 2016, I ordered the parties to show cause why they did not file their Joint Pretrial Order by its April 25, 2016, deadline. ECF No. 142. The parties jointly responded that they "did not feel that trial was ripe" because they were continuing to work toward a resolution. ECF No. 148. And they ask that I defer their JPTO obligation until after the parties have finished discovery and participated
More

Order Re: Order to Show Cause

[ECF No. 142]

On September 14, 2016, I ordered the parties to show cause why they did not file their Joint Pretrial Order by its April 25, 2016, deadline. ECF No. 142. The parties jointly responded that they "did not feel that trial was ripe" because they were continuing to work toward a resolution. ECF No. 148. And they ask that I defer their JPTO obligation until after the parties have finished discovery and participated in a settlement conference, and after the court has resolved questions over representation. Id.

I find that the parties have satisfied their obligations under the order to show cause with their joint response. Although the proper approach was not to ignore the court's deadline but to ask me to defer the obligation before it expired, I will not impose sanctions at this time because the mistake appears to be bilateral. I remind the parties, however, that deadlines have a purpose: keeping litigation on track and moving matters toward resolution; they are not merely aspirational suggestions to be adhered to only when the parties "feel" like it. Further disregard of court deadlines and orders will be met with sanctions.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that I will defer the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order until 14 days after the magistrate judge has resolved the pending representation issues (ECF Nos. 147, 151). This matter is referred to the magistrate judge to schedule this case for a mandatory settlement conference after those representation issues have been resolved.

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