SILVAGNI v. WAL MART STORES, INC., 2:16-cv-00039-JCM-NJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160427e44
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2016
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a motion to allow a supplemental initial disclosure and to extend certain deadlines. Docket No. 10. The Court hereby SETS that motion for hearing for 3:00 p.m. on April 28, 2016, in Courtroom 3C. The Court will entertain argument on the motion as a whole, but counsel should be prepared to address specifically whether any untimeliness to the proposed supplemental disclosure is harmless given that Plaintiff provided notic
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a motion to allow a supplemental initial disclosure and to extend certain deadlines. Docket No. 10. The Court hereby SETS that motion for hearing for 3:00 p.m. on April 28, 2016, in Courtroom 3C. The Court will entertain argument on the motion as a whole, but counsel should be prepared to address specifically whether any untimeliness to the proposed supplemental disclosure is harmless given that Plaintiff provided notice..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a motion to allow a supplemental initial disclosure and to extend certain deadlines. Docket No. 10. The Court hereby SETS that motion for hearing for 3:00 p.m. on April 28, 2016, in Courtroom 3C. The Court will entertain argument on the motion as a whole, but counsel should be prepared to address specifically whether any untimeliness to the proposed supplemental disclosure is harmless given that Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant of that supplement roughly one month before the initial expert deadline, set for May 9, 2016. Cf. Olaya v. Wal-Mart, 2012 WL 3262875, *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2012) (focusing harmlessness analysis on whether the disputed disclosure was made in time for defendant to obtain an expert witness by the applicable deadline).1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court herein expresses no opinion as to the merits of the motion.
Source: Leagle
