ORDER:

(1) DENYING REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

[Dkt. No. 81]

(2) GRANTING REQUEST FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO COURT'S LONE PINE ORDER

[Dkt. No. 77]

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion Regarding Defendants' Request for a Status Conference or Briefing Schedule Regarding a Challenge to Plaintiff's Response to the Lone Pine Case Management Order No. 1 ("Joint Motion"). Dkt. No. 81. In the Joint Motion, Defendants ask the Court for (1) "a status conference in order to address the procedure for raising objections to the sufficiency of Plaintiff's submissions in response to the Lone Pine CMO" or (2) in the alternative, "a briefing and hearing schedule for Defendants' motion challenging the sufficiency of said submission." Id. at 2. Plaintiff opposes Defendants' request, arguing that they lack authority for their request to file a response and that additional briefing is "unprecedented and unfair to Plaintiffs at this early stage of the litigation." Dkt. No. 81 at 7.

The Court finds that setting a briefing schedule for Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's Lone Pine submission is proper. In Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., the Fifth Circuit upheld a magistrate judge's decision to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for failure to comply with a Lone Pine order. 200 F.3d 335, 340-41 (5th Cir. 2000). And before the magistrate judge had dismissed the plaintiff's claims, the court had issued an order directing the defendant to file a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Court's Lone Pine order. Order at 1-2, 1998 WL 35283825, No. 96-cv-0543 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 1998), ECF No. 67 at 1 ("the deadline for filing a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the scheduling order is . . . .").

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' request for a status conference and GRANTS Defendants' request to set a briefing schedule for objections to Plaintiff's Lone Pine submission. Defendants may file objections challenging Plaintiff's prima facie evidence as insufficient pursuant to the Court's Case Management Order No.1, Dkt. No. 71 at 7. Such objections, however, should only consist of argument concerning the deficiencies in Plaintiff's submission and not evidence. In other words, the Court declines Defendants' invitation, see Dkt. No. 81 at 6, to convert Plaintiff's Lone Pine response and Defendants' subsequent objections into a motion for summary judgment. The Court's inquiry will focus on the adequacy of Plaintiff's showing only.

CONCLUSION

The Court hereby enters the following briefing schedule: Defendants shall file any objections to Plaintiff's Lone Pine submission (Dkt. No. 77) by January 2, 2016. Plaintiff shall file any reply by January 23, 2016. A response to Plaintiff's reply may be filed on or before January 30, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.