Cardoza et al v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc. et al

Filing 175

ORDER Denying as Moot 174 Emergency Motion for Clarification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/18/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
BROOKE CARDOZA, et al.,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

On December 9, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ competing discovery plans.

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
BLOOMIN’ BRANDS, INC., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:13-cv-1820-JAD-NJK
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION
(Docket No. 174)

17

Docket No. 165. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint proposed discovery plan in accordance

18

with the guidelines provided. See id.

19

Now pending before the Court is an emergency motion filed by Plaintiffs attaching

20

competing discovery plans based on the parties’ differing interpretation of the Court’s ruling at the

21

previous hearing. Docket No. 174.1 Having reviewed the attached discovery plans submitted, the

22

Court agrees with (and will separately enter) the proposed discovery plan submitted by Plaintiffs.

23

//

24
25
26
27
28

1

Counsel had also telephoned chambers seeking clarification. The Court advises counsel that
calling chambers is permissible in only the most urgent situations in which the parties do not have
sufficient time to submit a written request for relief. See Local Rule 26-7. That was not the situation
here. In similar situations in the future, counsel should file a written request in the first instance rather
than calling chambers.

1

Accordingly, the pending emergency motion for clarification is hereby DENIED as moot.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED: December 18, 2014

4
5

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
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

2