the District Court (hereinafter Mr. Robert Weaver) and Mr. Mumford submitted the following
briefing schedule:
Mr. Mumford’s Motion for the Production of Final Transcript Excerpts August 3, 2017
Mr. Mumford’s Response Brief to the Order to Show Cause October 17, 2017
Opposition to the Response November 17, 2017 Reply thereto December 8, 2017 Hearing January 8, 2017
(Dkt. No. 2187 at 1–2). However, shortly after the filing of the proposed schedule, Mr. Mumford
filed a motion for an extension of time to file the motion for the production of final transcript
excerpts. (Dkt. No. 2188.) Mr. Weaver does not oppose the extension provided it does not affect
the October 17, 2017 response deadline. (Id.) The Court hereby GRANTS Mr. Mumford’s
motion for an extension (Dkt. No. 2188) and sets the following schedule:
Mr. Mumford’s Motion for the Production of Final Transcript Excerpts August 8, 2017
Mr. Mumford’s Response Brief to the Order to Show Cause October 17, 2017
Opposition to the Response November 17, 2017 Reply thereto December 8, 2017 Hearing January 8, 2017
As to Mr. Weaver’s motion to set a briefing schedule to define the scope of the show
cause hearing, he moves for a “briefing schedule and hearing to be set on the limited issue of
what, if any, evidence may be presented at the hearing” on the order to show cause. (Dkt. No.
2186 at 2.) Mr. Weaver’s position is that because the basis for the revocation in the order to show
cause is Mr. Mumford’s conduct in open court as recorded in the transcript, he does not need—
and is not entitled to—an evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. No. 2187 at 2.) Specifically, Mr. Weaver
argues that “‘notice and an opportunity to be heard’—not a full scale evidentiary hearing—is all
that is required for revocation of pro hac vice status.” (Id.) (quoting Lasar v. Ford Motor Co.,
