CORESLAB STRUCTURES (ATLANTA), INC. v. MAGEST BUILDING SYSTEMS LIMITED, 1:15cv204. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160121997
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the Motion by Counsel Brad C. Parrott for Leave of Absence [# 16]. Counsel for Plaintiff seeks to obtain secured leave for various dates in 2016 and 2017. This Court, however, does not allow attorneys to obtain secured leave. While the Court will certainly take into account counsel's current schedule when setting any future hearings in this matter, this Court cannot guarantee counsel that such hearings will not occur on
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the Motion by Counsel Brad C. Parrott for Leave of Absence [# 16]. Counsel for Plaintiff seeks to obtain secured leave for various dates in 2016 and 2017. This Court, however, does not allow attorneys to obtain secured leave. While the Court will certainly take into account counsel's current schedule when setting any future hearings in this matter, this Court cannot guarantee counsel that such hearings will not occur on ..
More
ORDER
DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Motion by Counsel Brad C. Parrott for Leave of Absence [# 16]. Counsel for Plaintiff seeks to obtain secured leave for various dates in 2016 and 2017. This Court, however, does not allow attorneys to obtain secured leave. While the Court will certainly take into account counsel's current schedule when setting any future hearings in this matter, this Court cannot guarantee counsel that such hearings will not occur on the dates for which he seeks to obtain secured leave.
Moreover, it is up to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant to schedule depositions, not this Court. Presumably, counsel can work with opposing counsel to schedule all depositions at a mutual agreeable time and date that will not impact his currently scheduled vacations. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion [# 16].
Source: Leagle
