Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Elhouty v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company, 1:14-cv-00676-LJO-JLT. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150710803 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO ALLOW RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, Plaintiff KAMIES ELHOUTY ("Plaintiff") and Defendant LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY ("Lincoln Benefit"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, this action was filed on March 25, 2014 and removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern Dist
More

STIPULATION TO ALLOW RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY

STIPULATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, Plaintiff KAMIES ELHOUTY ("Plaintiff") and Defendant LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY ("Lincoln Benefit"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, this action was filed on March 25, 2014 and removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 7, 2014. On August January 28, 2014, the Court entered a Stipulation extending the non-expert discovery deadline to May 4, 2015 (D.E. 25);

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2015 Plaintiff issued a deposition notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), seeking to take the deposition of one or more corporate representatives of Lincoln Benefit;

WHEREAS, pending the Court's approval, the parties have agreed to take the deposition on August 6, 2015, which is outside the period ordered by the Court to conduct non-expert discovery;

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, Plaintiff and Lincoln Benefit stipulate that the Court allow Plaintiff to conduct the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Lincoln Benefit on August 6, 2015.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The stipulation of counsel is GRANTED. Absolutely no other modification to the scheduling order is authorized.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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