Does v. University of Washington, C16-1212JLR. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180905c47
Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' STIPULATION FOR A STAY PENDING THE CONCLUSION OF THE APPEAL JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court is the parties' stipulation to stay this case pending the completion of the appeal of the reissued preliminary injunction. (Stip. (Dkt. # 191); see also Reissued PI (Dkt. # 130); NOA (Dkt. # 147).) The court GRANTS the stipulated motion and STAYS this matter pending the outcome of the present appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 1 Within te
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' STIPULATION FOR A STAY PENDING THE CONCLUSION OF THE APPEAL JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court is the parties' stipulation to stay this case pending the completion of the appeal of the reissued preliminary injunction. (Stip. (Dkt. # 191); see also Reissued PI (Dkt. # 130); NOA (Dkt. # 147).) The court GRANTS the stipulated motion and STAYS this matter pending the outcome of the present appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 1 Within ten..
More
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' STIPULATION FOR A STAY PENDING THE CONCLUSION OF THE APPEAL
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
Before the court is the parties' stipulation to stay this case pending the completion of the appeal of the reissued preliminary injunction. (Stip. (Dkt. # 191); see also Reissued PI (Dkt. # 130); NOA (Dkt. # 147).) The court GRANTS the stipulated motion and STAYS this matter pending the outcome of the present appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1
Within ten (10) days of the return of the Ninth Circuit's mandate or any other disposition of the appeal, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report with the court suggesting how to proceed with discovery and the litigation in general and proposing a revised case schedule. The parties shall also notify the court within ten (10) days of any other event which impacts the continued appropriateness of the stay.
FootNotes
1. The court recognizes that Defendant University of Washington ("UW") intends to complete its supplemental responses to Defendant David Daleiden's first discovery requests, which are already in progress. (Stip. at 2 n.1.) The court's stay is inapplicable to UW's completion of these discovery responses, which are on an agreed timetable. However, the court will not entertain any additional discovery motions until the stay is lifted.
Source: Leagle
