Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#DocketEntry/flmd;;8:17-cv-00167_de19> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- flmd;;8:17-cv-00167_de19 RegisterActionDate "2017-02-25" @default.
- flmd;;8:17-cv-00167_de19 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ENDORSED ORDER ruling deferred 18 Motion. On February 24, 2017, the Court entered an order in response to Ms. Morales's request that the March 9, 2017, hearing date be moved so that she could go on a pre-paid and pre-planned trip. Fair enough. And so, the Court entered an order detailing what needed to be done: the Court requested that all three lawyers together contact the courtroom deputy to schedule a date around the March 9 date that would be acceptable to all. The Court handled it in this fashion because the dates suggested in Ms. Morales's motion were simply too far off to be acceptable or workable to the Court given its busy trial calendar. However, counsel did not do as requested. Instead, a legal assistant sent an email to the courtroom deputy informing her that the parties could appear for a telephone conference in mid-March but the first available date for all parties would be March 23. This is a date approximately one month away. The email went on to recite the dates that had already been provided to the court, in Ms. Morales's motion, as "good for all" hearing dates--March 27-31 and April 6. The reason why the Court asked the three lawyers to contact the courtroom deputy was to avoid precisely what occurred here. This is not about finding a date one month away that is perfect for all lawyers. This is about finding a date, around the original date, that does not have a specific conflict with a pre-paid and pre-planned trip. Having said that, the Court, who has now had to get involved in the scheduling of a simple hearing, will give the lawyers one more opportunity to provide their input in rescheduling this hearing for a date other than March 9. The options are--March 1, 2, or 3, given the conflicts reported in the legal assistant's email to the courtroom deputy. The Court has selected these dates as an accommodation to the lawyers who have indicated that they are not available from March 6 through March 22. If the lawyers are unable to find such a date, the hearing will be cancelled, and will not be rescheduled. However, the parties cannot then be heard to complain about the dates or time frames selected by the Court. Counsel are directed to confer by telephone on February 27 and by the end of the day, inform the Court of the selected date for the case management hearing via the filing of a pleading. Counsel should file its case management report by February 28, 2017, by noon, regardless of if or when the case management hearing will be held. As noted in the Court's order the Court will not hold cases management hearings by telephone as apparently requested. This is because unlike state court, or hearings held in front of a magistrate judge, the district court utilizes a live court reporter. The court reporter must certify that the transcript is true and correct. With a telephone hearing, it is simply unfair to request a court reporter to make that certification, absent the necessity presented due to a true emergency. Furthermore, such a demand should not be made by a legal assistant in an email to the courtroom deputy, but should be made via the filing of a motion as required by the Local Rules. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/25/2017. (Covington, Virginia) (Entered: 02/25/2017)" @default.
- flmd;;8:17-cv-00167_de19 AdministrativeID "20" @default.
- flmd;;8:17-cv-00167_de19 OntologyLabel order @default.
- flmd;;8:17-cv-00167_de19 hasReferenceToOtherEntry flmd;;8:17-cv-00167_de17 @default.