SAMPSON v. IMAGE 2000, INC., 2:13-CV-01321-MMD-NJK. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140521859
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2014
Summary: STIPULATED APPLICATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. In accordance with LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to and request that the Court extend the existing discovery cutoff deadline, the due date for dispositive motions and the due date for filing a pretrial order by 30 days. As grounds for this application, the parties state as follows: 1. Discovery Completed to
Summary: STIPULATED APPLICATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. In accordance with LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to and request that the Court extend the existing discovery cutoff deadline, the due date for dispositive motions and the due date for filing a pretrial order by 30 days. As grounds for this application, the parties state as follows: 1. Discovery Completed to D..
More
STIPULATED APPLICATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
In accordance with LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to and request that the Court extend the existing discovery cutoff deadline, the due date for dispositive motions and the due date for filing a pretrial order by 30 days. As grounds for this application, the parties state as follows:
1. Discovery Completed to Date: The parties have been diligently pursuing discovery in this action. The parties have served Initial Disclosures, including, for both parties, the production of a substantial number of documents. The Plaintiff served written discovery requests and the Defendant has responded to those requests. The Defendant also later served written discovery requests and the Plaintiff is in the process of preparing a response and collecting documents in response to those requests. Neither party has disclosed or needs to disclose an expert witness. On March 12, 2014, the parties filed an Interim Status Report, noting the potential need to extend the discovery cut-off date to accommodate the scheduling of depositions.
2. Discovery Remaining: Depositions of the Plaintiff and personnel employed by the Defendant remains to be completed.
3. Reasons for Inability to Complete: The parties are in the process of completing their written discovery and document production obligations. They anticipate the need to complete approximately five depositions. Accommodating the schedules of the witnesses, many of which are out-of-State, and their counsel requires additional time beyond the date set forth in the original Scheduling Order.
4. Discovery Plan: The parties propose the following revised discovery plan:
A. Discovery Cut-Off Date: Friday, June 14, 2014.
B. Dispositive Motions: All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than Friday, July 11, 2014.
C. Pretrial Order: The parties shall file a joint pretrial order no later than Friday, August 14, 2014. In the event that dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after decision on the dispositive motion(s) or further order of the Court. The disclosure required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) and objections thereto shall be made in the pre-trial order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
