ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' SCHEDULING REPORT
(ECF No. 20)
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
A scheduling conference is set for June 13, 2017 in this action. Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, a joint scheduling report was due one week prior to the scheduled hearing. On June 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a scheduling report and declaration stating that defense counsel indicated he was not available to finish conferring on the joint report so Plaintiff filed a separate scheduling report. On June 7, 2017, Defendants filed a report which states it is a joint scheduling report. On this same date, Plaintiff filed an objection to that portion of Defendants' scheduling report that indicates it is a joint report.
Having reviewed the scheduling reports filed by the parties, the Court recognizes that the report filed by Defendants is not a joint report. The Court is able to "cut through the rhetoric" in the parties pleading to address the scheduling issues presented by the parties.
The Court is familiar with the history of counsel representing the parties in this action. Therefore, the Court advises the parties that it will not exercise playground jurisdiction in this action. Counsel is expected to comply with Federal Rules and orders of the Court. Further, the Court expects counsel to treat each other with professional courtesy which includes timely meeting and conferring to ensure that deadlines established by the Court are met. Each party has a right to a fair trial on the merits, but not at the expense of unprofessional conduct. The Court anticipates that with this advisement no further such issues shall arise during the course of litigating this matter. If the parties do not heed the Court's admonishment it will consider imposition of sanctions sua sponte and/or require that counsel submit all future pleadings without the use of an adverb and/or adjective.
IT IS SO ORDERED.