ALTO VENTURES, INC. v. CONVERGYS CORP., 2:11-cv-01056-PMP-CWH. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120130711
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties' Discovery Plan and [Proposed] Scheduling Order (#98), filed January 20, 2012. The proposed plan is not styled or captioned as a stipulation. Nevertheless, because the Local Rules require the discovery plan to be submitted as stipulation, the Court will construe it as such. See LR 26-1(d) ("Fourteen (14) day after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the parties shall submit a stipulated dis
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties' Discovery Plan and [Proposed] Scheduling Order (#98), filed January 20, 2012. The proposed plan is not styled or captioned as a stipulation. Nevertheless, because the Local Rules require the discovery plan to be submitted as stipulation, the Court will construe it as such. See LR 26-1(d) ("Fourteen (14) day after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the parties shall submit a stipulated disc..
More
ORDER
C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' Discovery Plan and [Proposed] Scheduling Order (#98), filed January 20, 2012. The proposed plan is not styled or captioned as a stipulation. Nevertheless, because the Local Rules require the discovery plan to be submitted as stipulation, the Court will construe it as such. See LR 26-1(d) ("Fourteen (14) day after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the parties shall submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order.").
Unfortunately, the filing is not signed by the parties or counsel. The Local Rules also require, subject to some exceptions not applicable here, that all stipulations "shall be in writing, signed by the parties or counsel for the parties to be bound. . . ." See LR 7-1(a). Additionally, the proposed plan includes several proposed deadlines that are not identified by a specific date. Counsel should ensure that all deadlines correspond with a calendar date. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Discovery Plan and [Proposed] Scheduling Order (#98) is denied without prejudice. The parties are instructed to resubmit a stipulation signed by all parties that includes corresponding calendar dates for all proposed deadlines.
Source: Leagle
