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)

Download PDF
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?