Pacific Coast Steel et al v. Leany et al
ORDER Granting 128 Joint request for a status conference. ( Status Conference set for 10/28/2010 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen.) Granting in part and Denying in Part, 127 Motion to Modify Discovery Plan.Granting 131 Emergency Motion for Protective Order.The court will conduct a status and dispute resolution conference on October 28, 2010.The parties shall submit a joint status report no later than 4:00 p.m., October 25, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/24/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)
Pacific Coast Steel et al v. Leany et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The court conducted a status conference on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at the parties' request. James Kilroy and Paul Prior appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Mark Hutchinson, Todd Prall, Ryan Lower and Matthew Johnson appeared on behalf of the Defendants. Having reviewed and considered the number of matters and motions discussed at the hearing, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The parties joint request for a status conference (Dkt. #128) is GRANTED. A status conference was conducted September 21, 2010. Additionally, the court will conduct a further status and dispute resolution conference on Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants' Motion to Modify Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order and Motion for Leave to Take Three Additional Depositions (Dkt. #27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' motion to extend the discovery cutoff and related case management deadlines 120 days is DENIED. Defendants' request for leave to take an additional three (3) to four (4) deposition beyond the fifteen (15) the parties have mutually agreed upon is GRANTED. Counsel for the parties shall forthwith meet and confer to contact the additional deponents and schedule their deposition, if possible, PACIFIC COAST STEEL, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) TODD LEE LEANY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:09-cv-02190-KJD-PAL ORDER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. 4. 3.
before the October 4, 2010 discovery cutoff. If the depositions cannot be taken before the October 4, 2010 discovery cutoff despite the exercise of due diligence, counsel shall schedule October 4, 2010 discovery cutoff and in no event later than thirty (30) days after the cutoff Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #131) is GRANTED to the extent that the depositions of Eric Benson and David Perkins shall each take place on two (2) consecutive days. The parties have stipulated that both stipulations could exceed seven (7) hours. However, Defendants scheduled David Perkins' deposition for two separate days a week apart, and also wish to take Mr. Benson's deposition on two nonconsecutive days. Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED and both depositions shall take place on two consecutive days. Counsel for the parties indicated that they have some additional discovery issues and are still in the process of meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve them without the court's intervention. In addition, Defendants have filed a Motion for Leave to ReDepose (Dkt. #126), Motion to Compel (Dkt. #130) and intend to file some additional motions. Both sides agree that the normal briefing period on Defendants' pending motions should be allowed and the matters addressed on the merits at the conclusion of the briefing. The court will conduct a status and dispute resolution conference on October 28, 2010. The parties shall submit a joint status report no later than 4:00 p.m., October 25, 2010. Dated this 24th day of September, 2010.
_______________________________________ Peggy A. Leen United States Magistrate Judge
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?