In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1566)
Filing
2317
ORDER that Plaintiffs' shall have until April 15, 2016, to file a responses to CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 2286 ), and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Res Judicata and Relea se Defenses and Supporting Brief (Dkt. # 2299 ). Movants shall have until April 29, 2016, to file a reply to the Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 2286 , 2299 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/9/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
8
9
10
11
IN RE WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE
NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION,
MDL Docket No. 1566
Base Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL
ORDER
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS
12
This matter is before the court on the district judge’s minute order setting two motions for
13
summary judgment for hearing. In a Minute Order in Chambers (Dkt. #2291) entered February
14
29, 2016, the district judge set oral argument on CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.’s Motion for
15
Summary Judgment (Dkt. #2286) for oral argument on May 20, 2016. In an Amended Minute
16
Order entered March 4, 2016, the district judge also set Defendants’ Motion for Summary
17
Judgment Based on Res Judicata and Release Defenses (Dkt. #2299) for oral argument on May
18
20, 2016.
19
After remand from the United States Supreme Court, the district judge held an initial
20
status conference on September 15, 2015 and indicated his preference on the record that serial
21
dispositive motions should not be filed, and that dispositive motions should ordinarily be filed
22
after the close of discovery. The parties were directed to submit a proposed discovery plan and
23
scheduling order to the undersigned, and to schedule a mediation either with a private mediator
24
or to discuss assignment of another magistrate judge in this district to conduct a mediation. See
25
Minutes of Proceedings (Dkt. #2160).
26
The undersigned has been conducting monthly status and dispute resolution conferences
27
since October 8, 2015. The parties’ Stipulated Case Management Schedule (Dkt #2164) was
28
entered October 8, 2015. See Order (Dkt. #2169). At the October 8, 2015 status and dispute
1
1
resolution conference several defendants indicated an intention to file dispositive motions before
2
the close of discovery. Plaintiffs opposed the suggestion asserting it was inconsistent with the
3
district judge’s stated intention, inefficient and disruptive to timely completion of discovery and
4
expert report preparation. The court indicated no order precluding motions for summary
5
judgment from being filed would be entered. However, to avoid disrupting the discovery plan
6
and scheduling order, completion of discovery and filing serial dispositive motions, responses to
7
dispositive motions would not be due until 12/1/2016, unless the district judge ordered
8
otherwise. The court directed counsel for any party filing a dispositive motion before the close
9
of discovery to provide a rationale for why the motion should be heard earlier.
10
The district judge has now set oral argument on two dispositive motions. The minute
11
order setting two dispositive motions for hearing on May 20, 2016, did not expressly address
12
when responses to the motions for summary judgment would be due. The court therefore
13
communicated with the district judge to determine his intention. Having discussed the matter
14
with the district judge, it is his intention to require responses to the motions for summary
15
judgment. The parties responding to the motions for summary judgment which are set for
16
hearing may respond that additional discovery is needed before a decision on the merits may be
17
rendered, or that filing the motion(s) is contrary to the timing preference the district judge
18
previously expressed. However, a response and reply must be filed sufficiently in advance of the
19
hearing for Judge Jones to consider the motions. Setting a briefing schedule was referred to me.
20
Having reviewed and considered the matter,
21
IT IS ORDERED that:
22
1. Plaintiffs’ shall have until April 15, 2016, to file a responses to CenterPoint Energy
23
Services, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #2286), and Defendants”
24
Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Res Judicata and Release Defenses and
25
Supporting Brief (Dkt. #2299).
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
2
3
2. Movants shall have until April 29, 2016, to file a reply to the Motions for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. #2286, 2299)
Dated this 9th day of March, 2016.
4
5
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?