Cannon v. Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, CV418-176. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190826835
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the parties Joint Stipulation and Consent Order. Doc. 41. In the stipulation, the parties indicate that they agree to an extension of time to conduct a deposition of Eric F. Naugle. Id. Presumably, the parties are requesting that the Court approve this stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). 1 Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the stipulation as a Motion for Court Approval of Stipulation. Having so construed the moti
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the parties Joint Stipulation and Consent Order. Doc. 41. In the stipulation, the parties indicate that they agree to an extension of time to conduct a deposition of Eric F. Naugle. Id. Presumably, the parties are requesting that the Court approve this stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). 1 Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the stipulation as a Motion for Court Approval of Stipulation. Having so construed the motio..
More
ORDER
JAMES E. GRAHAM, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the parties Joint Stipulation and Consent Order. Doc. 41. In the stipulation, the parties indicate that they agree to an extension of time to conduct a deposition of Eric F. Naugle. Id. Presumably, the parties are requesting that the Court approve this stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b).1 Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the stipulation as a Motion for Court Approval of Stipulation. Having so construed the motion, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's request and approves the stipulation. The parties shall have 45 days from the date of this Order to depose Mr. Naugle.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that parties requesting an action from the Court generally file a motion. S.D. Ga. L. R. 6.1 ("Extensions of time may not be obtained by stipulation between counsel and must either be sought from the Clerk . . ., or be requested by motion to the Court"). Nor is it clear to the Court that the parties may seek to reopen discovery—discovery in this case closed on July 1, 2019, thus the parties are not truly seeking an extension—based on stipulation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ("A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.") The Court does not delve into the relationship between these rules for purposes of this motion. Suffice it to say that the Court will allow the parties—who have all consented—to proceed with the additional deposition
Source: Leagle
