Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de138> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de138 RegisterActionDate "2021-03-02" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de138 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER requiring the parties to file any motion regarding matters addressed in 104 Joint Status Report by 03/05/2021, with any response to any such motion due by 03/10/2021, and any reply due by 03/12/2021. In 104 Joint Status Report, the parties represented that (A) they had exchanged the additional discovery and disclosures ordered by the Court at the hearing on 01/27/2021, (B) Defendant "plans to request the Court conduct an in camera review of the responsive documents identified on [Plaintiff's] updated privilege log, the Court review [Plaintiff's] responses to 'contention interrogatories' and updated initial disclosures for appropriateness and sufficiency, and the Court order a new [Rule] 30(b)(6) deposition of [Plaintiff]... on the basis that [Plaintiff] did not comply with the Court's orders [at the hearing on 01/27/2021] in good faith," and (C) Plaintiff "disagrees with the need for any of the actions proposed by [Defendant], above." Defendant, however, has not followed through on its stated intent to make the requests described in 104 Joint Status Report. Moreover, the parties now have filed 107 Joint Motion to Continue Trial Date, expressing (contrary to the statements in 104 Joint Status Report) confusion about "whether Defendant needs to file a new [m]otion to [c]ompel in connection with [ 104 Joint Status] Report and the dispute [over the sufficiency of Plaintiff's compliance with the Court's orders at the hearing on 01/27/2021], whether Plaintiff needs to file for a [p]rotective [o]rder in connection with [ 104 Joint Status] Report, whether the Court will be conducting an in camera review of the claimed privileged documents, or whether the Court will order a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff...." Given that 104 Joint Status Report clearly represented that Defendant would file a request for court action, the Court finds the parties' subsequent representations of confusion about next steps puzzling. In the interest of resolving any alleged confusion, the Court now has entered a schedule for filings. Given that the parties have identified the disputes arising from compliance with the Court's orders at the hearing on 01/27/2021 as an impediment to trial in this case, they should not anticipate receiving any extensions of the deadlines set herein. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 03/02/2021. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 03/02/2021)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de138 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de138 hasJudgeReference SJ004076 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de138 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de131 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de138 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01377_de136 @default.