Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42 RegisterActionDate "2017-01-23" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER granting 32 Expedited Motion to Stay Response Deadline. In 32 Expedited Motion, Defendant requested a stay of its deadline to respond to 26 Motion for FLSA Conditional Collective Action Certification and Notice, pending the Court's resolution of 30 Motion to Postpone Consideration of 26 Motion Pending Limited Discovery. In support of 32 Expedited Motion, Defendant notes that, if the Court granted 30 Motion, the contemplated limited discovery that Defendant seeks to conduct regarding certification could not occur prior to the current deadline to respond to 26 Motion; as a result, requiring Defendant to file a response to 26 Motion on the current schedule risks forcing Defendant to file a pointless response (i.e., a response that did not take into account any discovery allowed by the Court). In 34 Opposition, Plaintiff does not directly address that issue, but instead argues that (1) the Court should not allow the limited discovery requested in 30 Motion and (2) Defendant seeks delay for the improper purpose of allowing the statute of limitations to run as to putative plaintiffs. Plaintiff offers no support for the latter accusation and the record refutes it, as (in Footnote 1 to 32 Expedited Motion) Defendant indicated its willingness to enter an agreement to toll the statute of limitations during any stay. Counsel for Plaintiff is cautioned to avoid making any further unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith against opposing counsel; the making of such unsubstantiated allegations itself constitutes bad faith litigation conduct. Plaintiff's arguments regarding the merits of Defendant's discovery request similarly do not support denial of 32 Expedited Motion, as the question posed by 32 Expedited Motion is not whether the Court should allow such discovery, but rather whether Defendant should have to respond to 26 Motion without knowing whether the Court will allow such discovery. Under these circumstances, the Court finds good cause to stay Defendant's deadline to respond to 26 Motion, until the Court resolves 30 Motion, subject to Defendant's execution of an agreement to toll the statute of limitations during the pendency of the stay. Counsel for the parties promptly shall confer about such a tolling agreement and either (1) shall file a joint status report on or before noon on 01/27/2017, confirming that they have reached an agreement, or (2) shall appear in Courtroom 1A of the L. Richardson Preyer United States Courthouse in Greensboro, North Carolina, at 4 p.m. on 01/27/17, for a pretrial conference to resolve any disputes regarding the tolling agreement. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 01/23/2017. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 01/23/2017)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42 hasJudgeReference SJ004076 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de29 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de35 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de37 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de42 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01088_de40 @default.