Saylor v. State of Nebraska, et al.
Filing
170
ORDER - The plaintiff's Motion to Reopen the Summary Judgment Record (Filing No. 165 ) is granted. The amended response (Filing No. 165 -1) will be considered instanter. The defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 168 ) is granted to the extent the defendants may have until July 18, 2014, to file a reply. The plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Progression Schedule and Alternative Motion to Enlarge Time for Filing Motions to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties (Filin g No. 169 ) is granted to the extent the court will revisit the progression deadlines with the parties, if necessary, following the court's ruling on the defendants' summary judgment motion and the plaintiff's objection. Counsel for the plaintiff shall contact the undersigned magistrate judge within ten (10) days following the courts ruling on such motions to schedule a telephone conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JAMES SAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
4:12CV3115
vs.
ORDER
RANDY KOHL, M.D., DENNIS
BAKEWELL, ROBERT HOUSTON,
NATALIE
BAKER,
M.D.,
MOHAMMAD
KAMAL,
M.D.,
CAMERON WHITE, PH.D., MARK
WEILAGE, PH.D., FRED BRITTEN,
KARI PEREZ, PH.D., and CORRECT
CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on several motions. The plaintiff filed a Motion to
Reopen the Summary Judgment Record (Filing No. 165) wherein the plaintiff seeks to
file an amended response to the defendants’ statement of material facts in the
defendants’ summary judgment motion. See Filing No. 165. The defendants have no
objection to the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the record; however, the defendants filed a
Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 168) seeking an extension of time to reply to
the plaintiff’s response and amended response. Upon consideration, the court will grant
the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the record and the defendants’ motion for an extension of
time.
The plaintiff also filed a Motion to Enlarge Progression Schedule and Alternative
Motion to Enlarge Time for Filing Motions to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties (Filing No.
169). If necessary, following the court’s ruling on the defendants’ summary judgment
motion (Filing No. 141) and the plaintiff’s objection (Filing No. 150), the court will hold a
telephone conference with counsel to reschedule the progression deadlines.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
The plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Summary Judgment Record (Filing
No. 165) is granted. The amended response (Filing No. 165-1) will be considered
instanter.
2.
The defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 168) is
granted to the extent the defendants may have until July 18, 2014, to file a reply.
3.
The plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Progression Schedule and Alternative
Motion to Enlarge Time for Filing Motions to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties (Filing No.
169) is granted to the extent the court will revisit the progression deadlines with the
parties, if necessary, following the court’s ruling on the defendants’ summary judgment
motion and the plaintiff’s objection.
Counsel for the plaintiff shall contact the
undersigned magistrate judge within ten (10) days following the court’s ruling on such
motions to schedule a telephone conference.
Dated this 8th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?