Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Speca v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 2:18-cv-00835-MMD-GWF. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190104b75 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST) GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties hereto, by and through their undersigned counsel of record that, pursuant to LR 26-4, the Scheduling Order (Doc. # 15) be amended as follows: I. Discovery Completed The Joint Administrative Record in this ERISA claim was filed with this Court by Defendant AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (AETNA) on November 16, 2018 without the need for discovery briefs. II
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES

(SECOND REQUEST)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties hereto, by and through their undersigned counsel of record that, pursuant to LR 26-4, the Scheduling Order (Doc. # 15) be amended as follows:

I. Discovery Completed

The Joint Administrative Record in this ERISA claim was filed with this Court by Defendant AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (AETNA) on November 16, 2018 without the need for discovery briefs.

II. Deadlines Remaining and Reason for Request for Extension

Plaintiff's Rule 52 and/or Rule 56 Motion is currently due by January 7, 2019. The parties are still in the process of discussing alternative dispute options. Due to the holidays and an unusually busy December for Plaintiff's counsel, she has not been able to confer with her client regarding alternative dispute resolution but will be doing so shortly. Accordingly, the parties would like to extend the dispositive motion due date an additional 30 days to allow them time to pursue those options.

III. Proposed Briefing Schedule

Plaintiff SPECA and Defendant AETNA hereby agree and stipulate to the following proposed deadline extensions:

Description: Current Deadline: Proposed: Plaintiff's Dispositive ERISA Motion 01/07/19 02/06/19 under Rule 52 and/or 56 Aetna's Response to Dispositive 02/04/19 03/06/19 Motion Plaintiff's Reply 02/19/19 03/21/19

We, the undersigned, represent to the Court that this request for extension is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.

WHEREFORE, the parties jointly request that this Court adopt the proposed scheduling deadlines as indicated above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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