Shuffield v. Michael J. Astrue

Filing 14

ORDER that Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 13 is GRANTED to the extent the deadlines for filing and responding to a motion to remand and/or reversal are extended. However, the parties shall comply with the substantive provisions within the court's Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 12 , ¶¶5-11). Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/19/12. (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

JAMES D. SHUFFIELD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00243-KJD-PAL
ORDER

12
13

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #13) that

14

was filed July 6, 2012. However, just prior to Plaintiff filing his proposed scheduling order, the court

15

filed its own Scheduling Order (Dkt. #12) on July 5, 2012. Plaintiff’s proposed plan states that to the

16

best of the parties’ knowledge the administrative record is complete and accurate. However, the plan

17

proposes longer deadlines for briefing Plaintiff’s motion for reversal and/or remand. The court will

18

grant Plaintiff’s request for additional time. However, the parties shall comply with the substantive

19

provisions of paragraphs 5 through 11 of the court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. #12).

20

IT IS ORDERED that:

21

1.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #13) is GRANTED to

22

the extent the deadlines for filing and responding to a motion to remand and/or

23

reversal are extended. However, the parties shall comply with the substantive

24

provisions within the court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. #12, ¶¶5-11).

25

Dated this 19th day of July, 2012.

26
27
28

______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge