Home Instead v. Boyce et al
Filing
70
ORDER denying without prejudice to reassertion at a later time the Plaintiff's 69 Motion for Extension of Progression Order Deadlines. By or before December 20, 2012, the parties shall jointly submit to the Court a proposed progression schedule for this case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HOME INSTEAD, Inc., a Nebraska
corporation,
Plaintiff,
V.
MERLE BOYCE, an individual,
CHARLES BOYCE JR., an
individual, and BOYCE
ENTERPRISES,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
8:11CV86
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the Court temporarily extend the deadlines
set forth in the Progression Order (filing 62) by sixty days and schedule a telephonic hearing
to discuss and set progression deadlines. (Filing 69.) Defendants have not objected to
Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of deadlines and request for a telephonic hearing
will be denied. However, the Court will order the parties to confer and jointly submit to the
Court a proposed, revised progression schedule.1 If the parties are unable to reach an
agreement with respect to progression deadlines, Plaintiff may renew its motion for extension
of time and request for a telephone conference.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
1
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Progression Order Deadlines (filing 69) is
denied without prejudice to reassertion at a later time.
The Court recognizes that the deadline for Plaintiff to disclose its expert witnesses
was December 3, 2012. However, given Plaintiff’s motion, the proposed progression
schedule may include a revised deadline for Plaintiff’s expert disclosures.
2.
By or before December 20, 2012, the parties shall jointly submit to the Court
a proposed progression schedule for this case.
DATED December 6, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
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?