Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Trost v. Cox, 3:14-cv-00611-MMD-WGC. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20171204c79 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ENLARGE THE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (ECF NO 166) (SECOND REQUEST) WILLIAM G. COBB , Magistrate Judge . Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Dwayne Baze, Robert Bannister, Barbara Cegavske, Travis Bennett, Stephen Daniels, James Dzurenda, Travis Fratis, Aaron Harroun, Daniel Henson, Christopher Jones, Adam Laxalt, Valaree Olivas, Brian Sandoval, Robert Scho
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ENLARGE THE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (ECF NO 166) (SECOND REQUEST)

Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Dwayne Baze, Robert Bannister, Barbara Cegavske, Travis Bennett, Stephen Daniels, James Dzurenda, Travis Fratis, Aaron Harroun, Daniel Henson, Christopher Jones, Adam Laxalt, Valaree Olivas, Brian Sandoval, Robert Schofield, Holly Skulstad, Ronald Waldo, Vernon White and State of Nevada ex rel. Board of Prison Commissioners (collectively, the "Defendants") by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, and Erin L. Albright, Deputy Attorney General, and Plaintiff, Roy Trost aka Daisy Meadows, by and through counsel, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., hereby stipulate to enlarge the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production and For Attorney's Fees and Costs (ECF No. 166) to December 8, 2017. The extension is sought because the parties will be discussing the motion to compel on November 30, 2017 in an attempt to resolve the outstanding discovery issues presented in Plaintiff's motion. Due to the fact that the parties are attempting to address the outstanding discovery issues, the parties have agreed to further extend the date the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 166).

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Stipulation to Extend the Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses and Requests for Production and for Attorney's Fees and Costs (ECF No. 166). The Court has examined the Stipulation as agreed by the parties to this stipulation and good cause having been shown,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants are granted until December 8, 2017 to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses and Requests for Production and for Attorney's Fees and Costs (ECF No. 166).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer