Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:17-cv-00906_de92> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:17-cv-00906_de92 RegisterActionDate "2019-06-13" @default.
- ncmd;;1:17-cv-00906_de92 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER granting 45 Plaintiff's uncontested motion to suppress errata sheet. FRCP 30(e) requires the following: (1) the request for review must be made by a party or the deponent before completion of the deposition; (2) the changes must be made within 30 days of notification that the transcript is available for review; (3) the deponent must sign a statement reciting the changes and the reasons for making them; and (4) the changes must be appended to the transcript during the period allowed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 286, 290 n.9 (E.D. Va. 2011). The transcript states that Defendant did not request a review of the transcript before completion of the deposition as required by the rules, (See Document Entry 45-2 at 7), and Defendant has not filed a response that suggests otherwise. Where a party fails to file a timely response, the motion will be "considered and decided as an uncontested motion, and ordinarily will be granted without further notice." See Local Rule 7.3(k); see also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., No. 1:08CV918, 2010 WL 1667285, at *68 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 2010) (unpublished) (analyzing this Court's Local Rules 7.3(f), 7.2(a), and 7.3(k) and discussing authority supporting proposition that failure to respond to argument amounts to concession). Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 6/13/2019.(Lee, Pedra) (Entered: 06/13/2019)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:17-cv-00906_de92 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:17-cv-00906_de92 hasJudgeReference SJ004075 @default.
- ncmd;;1:17-cv-00906_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:17-cv-00906_de59 @default.