Filed: Jul. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. BURY , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this action by Complaint (Doc. 1) on June 7, 2019 and was given notice that the Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) and that the case is subject to the pilot. (Doc. 3.) On July 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay the case until August 30, 2019, to enable the parties to engage in earnest settlement discussions and alternative dispute resolution. (Motion (Doc. 9)). The MIDP precludes the Court
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. BURY , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this action by Complaint (Doc. 1) on June 7, 2019 and was given notice that the Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) and that the case is subject to the pilot. (Doc. 3.) On July 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay the case until August 30, 2019, to enable the parties to engage in earnest settlement discussions and alternative dispute resolution. (Motion (Doc. 9)). The MIDP precludes the Court f..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. BURY, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this action by Complaint (Doc. 1) on June 7, 2019 and was given notice that the Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) and that the case is subject to the pilot. (Doc. 3.) On July 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay the case until August 30, 2019, to enable the parties to engage in earnest settlement discussions and alternative dispute resolution. (Motion (Doc. 9)). The MIDP precludes the Court from granting the motion. (Notice (Doc. 3): General Order 17-08, amended November 1, 2018, ¶¶ A.5-6.)
The Complaint was served on June 17, 2019, with a Responsive Pleading being due within 21 days or by July 8, 2019. Fed. R. Civ. P.12(a)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to MIDP ¶ A.5, the Court may grant a one-time extension of up to 30 days to respond to the complaint upon a showing that a defendant cannot reasonably respond to a complaint within the time set forth in Rule 12(a). The Court grants such an extension of time, with the Responsive Pleading due by August 8, 2019. The parties shall note that their MIDP Initial Responses are due no later than 30 days after the first responsive pleading is filed in the case. General Order 17-08 ¶ 6. The Court may defer the initial MIDP discovery responses, "one time, for 30 days if the parties jointly certify to the Court that they are seeking to settle the case and have a good faith belief that it will be resolved within 30 days of the due date for their responses." Id. Accordingly, upon the proper certification, this Court may defer the MIDP discovery responses from being due on September 9, 2019 to being due on October 9, 2019.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Temporarily Stay the Litigation (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Defendant to file the Responsive Pleading is extended, one time, to August 8, 2019. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR FILING THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING WILL BE GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with General Order 17-08 ¶ 6 in the event they seek to extend the time for filing the initial MIDP discovery responses.
