Bridge v. Credit One Financial

Filing 183

ORDER that 182 Motion for Telephonic Hearing is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/11/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 WILLIAM BRIDGE, 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 CREDIT ONE FINANCIAL, 17 Defendant. 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 182) On March 31, 2016, United States District Judge Lloyd D. George granted Defendant’s motions 20 to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings in the instant matter. See Docket No. 178. Prior to that 21 order, Defendant had filed a deficient motion to seal certain documents, which the undersigned denied on 22 April 5, 2016. Docket No. 180. The undersigned ordered the parties to either file a motion to seal 23 addressing the proper standard and with appropriate declarations, or to file the documents on the public 24 docket, no later than April 15, 2016. Id. 25 The parties have now filed a joint motion for telephonic conference to address their perceived 26 conflicts in the Court’s orders. Docket No. 182. The Court can discern no conflict between an order 27 staying all substantive proceedings in this matter and an order addressing a procedural issue with the 28 Court’s docket. Further, the Court disagrees with the parties’ contention that addressing the procedural 1 issues of sealing documents or filing them on the public docket, and of granting leave to file excess pages, 2 somehow violates the Court’s stay of all substantive proceedings. Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion 3 for telephonic hearing is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: April 11, 2016. 6 7 8 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?