Henderson v. Hughes et al

Filing 241

ORDER that defendant Thomas Robert Hughes must respond to the discovery requests identified in plaintiff Elma Hendersons motion to compel (ECF No. 235) by June 1, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

ELMA HENDERSON,

7
8
9

Case No. 2:16-cv-01837-JAD-CWH

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
THOMAS ROBERT HUGHES, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
12
13
14

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Elma Henderson’s proposed order (ECF No.
240), filed on March 29, 2018.
The court previously granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel and ordered plaintiff

15

to submit a proposed order for the court’s consideration. (Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 235); Order

16

(ECF No. 238).) Plaintiff’s proposed order does not comply with Local Rule 7-2(f), which

17

requires a party filing a proposed order to certify to the court that it served the proposed order on

18

all opposing parties for approval as to form. 1 The court therefore declines to enter plaintiff’s

19

proposed order.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The full text of Local Rule 7-2(f) is as follows:

If the court instructs a prevailing party to file a proposed order, the prevailing party must
serve the proposed order on all opposing parties or attorneys for approval as to form. The
opposing parties (or, if represented by counsel, their attorneys) then have three days after
service of the proposed order to notify the prevailing party of any reason for disapproval;
failure to notify the prevailing party within three days of any reason for disapproval will
be deemed an approval. The prevailing party must then file the order with the word
PROPOSED in the title and must certify to the court that it served the proposed order and
that three days have passed and state any reasons for disapproval received (or that none
were received). Opposing parties who have timely served reasons for disapproval may file
a competing proposed order within three days of being served with notice that the
prevailing party filed its proposed order.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Thomas Robert Hughes must respond to the

2

discovery requests identified in plaintiff Elma Henderson’s motion to compel (ECF No. 235) by

3

June 1, 2018. Defendant is advised that his responses must comply with the Federal Rules of

4

Civil Procedure and the court’s Local Rules of Practice.

5
6

DATED: May 1, 2018

7
8
9

C.W. HOFFMAN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2