Riverport Insurance Company v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 2:18-cv-00330-GMN-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20181129d93
Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2018
Summary: Order [Docket No. 24] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a stipulation to reconsider the order granting as unopposed Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docket No. 24. Reconsideration of an order is disfavored, and is proper when (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available previously, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1. The stipu
Summary: Order [Docket No. 24] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a stipulation to reconsider the order granting as unopposed Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docket No. 24. Reconsideration of an order is disfavored, and is proper when (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available previously, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1. The stipul..
More
Order
[Docket No. 24]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a stipulation to reconsider the order granting as unopposed Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docket No. 24. Reconsideration of an order is disfavored, and is proper when (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available previously, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1. The stipulation makes no effort to explain how any of these circumstances exist here, and they plainly do not. The premise of the stipulation is that the Court ordered responses to discovery motions be filed within four days of the service of the motion and that, despite the Court explicitly warning the parties not to do so, counsel and their staff instead assumed the response deadline to the motion to compel was 14 days after it was filed based on an automatically generated CM/ECF notice. Compare Docket No. 11 at 2 and n.1 with Docket No. 24 at 2.1 Such a situation is not compelling as a general matter, and it certainly does not meet the standards for reconsideration. Nonetheless, because the parties agree to reconsideration and as a one-time courtesy only, the stipulation will be GRANTED.
The Clerk's Office is INSTRUCTED to reactivate the motion to compel at Docket No. 21. The response to that motion shall be filed by 5:00 p.m. on November 29, 2018. The Court expects strict compliance with all deadlines and all orders moving forward.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The local rules have already made clear for some time that the automatically-generated CM/ECF notice is a courtesy of no legal consequence. Local Rule IC 3-1(d). Implementing a system by which office personnel advise attorneys on deadlines based on such notices, as appears to be the case here, Docket No. 24 at 2, does not obviate an attorney's duty to ensure for himself that he is complying with a clear order.
Source: Leagle
