Bridge v. Credit One Financial, 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160412c48
Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 182) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . On March 31, 2016, United States District Judge Lloyd D. George granted Defendant's motions to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings in the instant matter. See Docket No. 178. Prior to that order, Defendant had filed a deficient motion to seal certain documents, which the undersigned denied on April 5, 2016. Docket No. 180. The undersigned ordered the parties to either file a motion to seal addressing the proper standard and
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 182) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . On March 31, 2016, United States District Judge Lloyd D. George granted Defendant's motions to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings in the instant matter. See Docket No. 178. Prior to that order, Defendant had filed a deficient motion to seal certain documents, which the undersigned denied on April 5, 2016. Docket No. 180. The undersigned ordered the parties to either file a motion to seal addressing the proper standard and ..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 182)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
On March 31, 2016, United States District Judge Lloyd D. George granted Defendant's motions to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings in the instant matter. See Docket No. 178. Prior to that order, Defendant had filed a deficient motion to seal certain documents, which the undersigned denied on April 5, 2016. Docket No. 180. The undersigned ordered the parties to either file a motion to seal addressing the proper standard and with appropriate declarations, or to file the documents on the public docket, no later than April 15, 2016. Id.
The parties have now filed a joint motion for telephonic conference to address their perceived conflicts in the Court's orders. Docket No. 182. The Court can discern no conflict between an order staying all substantive proceedings in this matter and an order addressing a procedural issue with the Court's docket. Further, the Court disagrees with the parties' contention that addressing the procedural issues of sealing documents or filing them on the public docket, and of granting leave to file excess pages, somehow violates the Court's stay of all substantive proceedings. Accordingly, the parties' joint motion for telephonic hearing is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
