Kwasniewski et al v. sanofi-aventis U.S., LLC et al

Filing 178

ORDER that 177 Motion for Protective Order is DENIED as moot to the extent it seeks to continue the deposition date. The parties shall agree to a new date among themselves and, if necessary under Rule 29, shall file a stipulation for Court app roval by December 28, 2016. Given that the deposition will not go forward as currently scheduled, the Court hereby EXTENDS the response deadline to the motion to January 19, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
JENNIFER KWASNIEWSKI, et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 177)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for protective order regarding the Rule 30(b)(6)

17

deposition currently noticed for January 4, 2017. Docket No. 177. As an initial matter, the motion seeks

18

a continuance of the deposition and represents that Plaintiffs’ counsel is amenable to such continuance.

19

See, e.g., Docket No. 177 at 3. Parties are permitted to stipulate to continuing a deposition without

20

Court approval so long as doing so does not interfere with the schedule set by the Court. See Fed. R.

21

Civ. P. 29. To the extent an agreed continuance does interfere with the schedule set by the Court, the

22

parties should file a stipulation seeking Court approval. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-1. As such, the motion

23

for protective order is DENIED as moot to the extent it seeks to continue the deposition date.1 The

24

parties shall agree to a new date among themselves and, if necessary under Rule 29, shall file a

25

stipulation for Court approval by December 28, 2016.

26
27
28

1

The remainder of the motion for protective order remains pending.

1

Additionally, Defendant’s counsel protests the date of the deposition because he “will be with

2

family and generally unavailable over the holidays.” Docket No. 177-1 at ¶ 4. Based on the timing of

3

the filing of the motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel would be required to prepare a response over the holidays

4

as it is due January 5, 2017. See Local Rule 7-2(b).2 Given that the deposition will not go forward as

5

currently scheduled, the Court hereby EXTENDS the response deadline to the motion to January 19,

6

2017.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: December 23, 2016

9

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court notes that Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been amended, effective
December 1, 2016, such that an additional three days is no longer added to deadlines based on the service
of a motion through the Court’s CM/ECF system. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (omitting provision for additional
time when service is completed electronically pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(E)).
2