WILLIAMS v. JOHNSON, cv 313-063. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140903c68
Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistarte Judge. The above-captioned casewas filed on August 26, 2013. (Doc. no. l). On October 31, 2013, the Court stayed all discovery pending the presiding distict judge's ruling on a motion to dismissthat was then pending (doc. no. 14), but the Court directed the parties to make initial disclosures, as well as confer and submit a report as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.26(f), without awaiting a ruling on the motion to dismiss,(doc. no. 25). In the partial schedulingorder
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistarte Judge. The above-captioned casewas filed on August 26, 2013. (Doc. no. l). On October 31, 2013, the Court stayed all discovery pending the presiding distict judge's ruling on a motion to dismissthat was then pending (doc. no. 14), but the Court directed the parties to make initial disclosures, as well as confer and submit a report as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.26(f), without awaiting a ruling on the motion to dismiss,(doc. no. 25). In the partial schedulingorder ..
More
ORDER
BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistarte Judge.
The above-captioned casewas filed on August 26, 2013. (Doc. no. l). On October 31, 2013, the Court stayed all discovery pending the presiding distict judge's ruling on a motion to dismissthat was then pending (doc. no. 14), but the Court directed the parties to make initial disclosures, as well as confer and submit a report as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.26(f), without awaiting a ruling on the motion to dismiss,(doc. no. 25). In the partial schedulingorder entered on December 6, 2013, the Court directed the parties to submit a proposed revised joint scheduling order within fourteen days of the resolution of the motion to dismiss. (doc. no. 37). On August 11, 2014, the district judge ruled on the motion to dismiss (doc. no. 48), and the parties should have submitted a proposed revised joint scheduling order within fourteen days thereafter. However, no proposed order has been filed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the partiesto file a proposed revised joint scheduling order within sevendays of the date of this Order.
SO ORDERED
Source: Leagle
