You're viewing Docket Item 57 from the case Day et al v. Forman Automotive Group. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:12-cv-00577-JCM-CWH Document 57 Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

VAL DAY, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________________________________)

vs.
FORMAN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cv-00577-JCM-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Supplement Deposition Excerpts
with the Court Reporters Certification Pages Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (#55), filed on August
8, 2013. Defendants failed to submit a response. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, Defendants’ failure
to submit an opposition constitutes consent to granting of the motion.

Plaintiffs request that the Court allow them to supplement seven deposition transcripts

included as exhibits in Response #43, Response #44, and Response #45 with the court reporter’s
signature pages, which counsel inadvertently failed to include initially. In doing so, Plaintiff cite
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 that allows the court to correct a mistake arising from an oversight or omission
in a part of the record. Defendants failed to file any points and authorities in response. Therefore,
the Court finds that Plaintiffs demonstrated that the exclusion of the court reporter’s certification
pages is excusable under Rule 60(b)(1) and will grant Plaintiffs’ request.

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Supplement Deposition Excerpts

with the Court Reporters Certification Pages Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (#55) is granted.

DATED this 4th day of September, 2013.

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28