Dickman v. Banner Life Insurance Company, RDB-16-192. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20171130f89
Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD D. BENNETT , District Judge . Presently pending before this Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify or Set Aside Order (ECF#119) seeking to modify the prior Order of Magistrate Judge Copperthite (ECF#118). Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion raises an objection to Magistrate Judge Copperthite's Orders with respect to discovery in this case as set forth in Magistrate Judge Copperthite's Memorandum Opinion and Order of September 28, 2017 (ECF#113 & 114). The Court
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD D. BENNETT , District Judge . Presently pending before this Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify or Set Aside Order (ECF#119) seeking to modify the prior Order of Magistrate Judge Copperthite (ECF#118). Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion raises an objection to Magistrate Judge Copperthite's Orders with respect to discovery in this case as set forth in Magistrate Judge Copperthite's Memorandum Opinion and Order of September 28, 2017 (ECF#113 & 114). The Court ..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD D. BENNETT, District Judge.
Presently pending before this Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify or Set Aside Order (ECF#119) seeking to modify the prior Order of Magistrate Judge Copperthite (ECF#118). Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion raises an objection to Magistrate Judge Copperthite's Orders with respect to discovery in this case as set forth in Magistrate Judge Copperthite's Memorandum Opinion and Order of September 28, 2017 (ECF#113 & 114). The Court has reviewed said Motion and the submissions of the parties and it is HEREBY ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2017 that said Motion is DENIED.
The Plaintiffs have not complied with Local Rule 301.5(a) and did not file an objection to Magistrate Judge's Order within 14 days. The effort to circumvent this time period by filing a Motion to Amend or Correct said Order is of no avail. Furthermore, apart from the untimeliness of the Plaintiffs' Motion, the Plaintiffs fail to meet the burden of showing that Magistrate Judge Copperthite's orders were "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Motion to Set Aside Motion (ECF#119) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
