Appalachian Land Company v. Equitable Production Company, No. 7:2008cv00139 - Document 77 (E.D. Ky. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: parties' joint motion (DE 76 ) is GRANTED. The deadlines set forth in the December 23 Scheduling Order (DE 72 ), as well as any outstanding obligations to respond to discovery are STAYED pending further Or der of this Court. The parties shall submit a joint status report within thirty (30) days of entry of this order apprising Court of progress of settlement negotiations and of parties' belief regarding necessity of a telephonic status conference. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/20/2016. (RCB)cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Appalachian Land Company v. Equitable Production Company Doc. 77 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION AT PIKEVILLE APPALACHIAN LAND COMPANY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:08-cv-139-KKC Plaintiff, V. OPINION AND ORDER EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, f/k/a EQUITABLE PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendant. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion (DE 76) to stay the deadlines set forth in this Court’s December 23, 2015, Scheduling Order. (DE 72.) The parties represent that settlement would be facilitated by a stay, and certify that settlement negotiations would be productive toward reaching a final resolution in this matter whether or not a settlement is ever reached. This Court finds that the parties have provided an adequate basis for the requested stay. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion (DE 76) is GRANTED. The deadlines set forth in the December 23 Scheduling Order (DE 72), as well as any outstanding obligations to respond to discovery are STAYED pending further Order of this Court. The parties shall submit a joint status report within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order apprising the Court of the progress of settlement negotiations and of the parties’ belief regarding the necessity of a telephonic status conference. Dated May 20, 2016. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
