King v. Amazon Corporation, 3:18-CV-00534-FDW-DSC. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20190213b79
Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Amazon's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (Doc. No. 30). The Court sees a need to clarify that its Standing Order Governing Case Management, Misc. No. 3:07-mc-00047 (Doc. No. 2-4), does apply to this case. Paragraph 1(b) of the standing order is not intended to completely exclude adversarial civil actions which involve discovery simply on the basis that one of the parties may be unrepresented.
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Amazon's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (Doc. No. 30). The Court sees a need to clarify that its Standing Order Governing Case Management, Misc. No. 3:07-mc-00047 (Doc. No. 2-4), does apply to this case. Paragraph 1(b) of the standing order is not intended to completely exclude adversarial civil actions which involve discovery simply on the basis that one of the parties may be unrepresented. ..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Amazon's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (Doc. No. 30). The Court sees a need to clarify that its Standing Order Governing Case Management, Misc. No. 3:07-mc-00047 (Doc. No. 2-4), does apply to this case. Paragraph 1(b) of the standing order is not intended to completely exclude adversarial civil actions which involve discovery simply on the basis that one of the parties may be unrepresented.
Given the unique nature of this case, the Court recognizes the potential for confusion and hereby GRANTS Defendant Amazon an extension of time to file an Answer on the basis of excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. (6)(b)(1)(B). Defendant Amazon should file an answer within three (3) days of entry of this order. Parties are ordered to hold an initial attorney conference within twenty-one (21) days of serving the answer.1
The Court further notes that because of Plaintiff's status of incarceration, he is ineligible for participation in the Pro Se Settlement Assistance Program ("PSAP").
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Given that Plaintiff is presently incarcerated in state prison, the Court is preemptively extending the deadline to conduct an initial attorney conference for the convenience of the parties.
Source: Leagle
