Rogers v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2:19-cv-01581-APG-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20191015e83
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . This case was recently transferred to this Court from MDL proceedings taking place in the District of Arizona. Pending before the Court is the parties' joint status report. Docket No. 19. 1 The Court hereby ORDERS as follows: First, the parties must promptly conduct a conference that complies with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and must file a proposed discovery plan that complies with Local Rule 26-1 by October 25, 2019. Se
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . This case was recently transferred to this Court from MDL proceedings taking place in the District of Arizona. Pending before the Court is the parties' joint status report. Docket No. 19. 1 The Court hereby ORDERS as follows: First, the parties must promptly conduct a conference that complies with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and must file a proposed discovery plan that complies with Local Rule 26-1 by October 25, 2019. Sec..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
This case was recently transferred to this Court from MDL proceedings taking place in the District of Arizona. Pending before the Court is the parties' joint status report. Docket No. 19.1 The Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
First, the parties must promptly conduct a conference that complies with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and must file a proposed discovery plan that complies with Local Rule 26-1 by October 25, 2019.
Second, the parties must meet-and-confer regarding a stipulated protective order to enter in this case, as the Court is not inclined to adopt three separate orders that were entered over time during the MDL proceedings.2 No later than October 24, 2019, the parties must file a proposed stipulated protective order.3,4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The filing is entitled a joint status report "and Proposed Scheduling Order." Docket No. 19 at 1. This appears to be a scrivener's error, as no proposed scheduling order was included.
2. The Court expresses no opinion herein as to the actual terms of those orders, but rather would prefer to adopt a single order that incorporates all relevant terms.
3. This must be a stand-alone filing and not simply included within the proposed discovery plan.
4. The joint status report references a host of other issues. The Court expresses no opinion herein on any other issues identified in the joint status report.
Source: Leagle
