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

Filing 355

ORDER Denying 354 Stipulation Regarding the Manner in Which Interrogatory Responses will be Signed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/9/15. (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
BROOKE CARDOZA, et al.,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
BLOOMIN’ BRANDS, INC., et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01820-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 354)

15

Pending before the Court is a stipulation regarding the manner in which interrogatory responses

16

will be signed. Docket No. 354. Discovery is meant to proceed with limited court involvement. To that

17

end, parties are generally permitted to stipulate among themselves to modify discovery procedures

18

without court oversight. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b) (parties may stipulate to modify discovery procedures,

19

and parties need to seek court approval of such stipulations only in the event the stipulation would

20

interfere with the schedule for completing discovery or for court proceedings); see also Local Rule 7-

21

1(b). Because the parties’ stipulation regarding interrogatory signatures does not impact the schedule

22

set by the court, court approval appears unnecessary. Accordingly, the stipulation is hereby DENIED

23

without prejudice. To the extent the parties continue to believe court approval is required, they must

24

so explain in any renewed stipulation.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: September 9, 2015

27
28

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge