DSD Network of America, Inc. et al v. McKoy et al
Filing
41
ORDER Denying 36 MOTION to Extend Discovery Deadlines (First Request) filed by DSD Network of America, Inc., Marco Moran. The parties shall file a joint pretrial order within 30 days of the last dispositive motion decided. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/6/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
DSD NETWORK OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DEWAYNE MCKOY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:12-cv-00486-MMD-PAL
ORDER
(Mot Ext Discovery - Dkt. #36)
12
13
The court conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (First
14
Request) (Dkt. #36) on February 5, 2013. Counsel for Plaintiff, Harold Gewerter, did not appear until
15
after the case was called and did not notify the court that he would be delayed. David Matheny timely
16
appeared on behalf of Defendant Corey Powell.
17
The Complaint (Dkt. #1) in this case was filed March 22, 2012. When the parties did not
18
submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order as required by LR 26-1(e), the court entered a
19
standard discovery plan on September 14, 2012, which established a December 12, 2012, discovery
20
cutoff and other deadlines consistent with LR 26-1(e). Plaintiff filed this motion nearly a month after
21
the discovery cutoff. Defendant Powell opposes the motion. The court considered Plaintiff’s Motion
22
(Dkt. #36), Defendant Powell’s Opposition (Dkt. #37), Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #38) and reviewed the
23
docket in this case. There are a number of dispositive motions currently pending before the district
24
judge.
25
Although the motion is styled a Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadlines, it is actually a
26
Motion to Reopen Discovery as it was filed well after the discovery cutoff expired. As such, Plaintiff is
27
required to show excusable neglect. Plaintiff did not initiate discovery before the discovery cutoff. As
28
grounds for the request to reopen discovery Plaintiff states that the close of discovery date was
1
inadvertently left off counsel’s calendar and the error was not discovered until after the holidays.
2
Additionally, because the court has not yet ruled on pending dispositive motions, counsel states that it is
3
difficult to craft appropriate discovery.
4
Having reviewed and considered the matter,
5
IT IS ORDERED that:
6
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend is DENIED.
7
2.
The parties shall file a joint pretrial order which fully complies with LR 16-3, 16-4 and
8
9
26(e)(6) within 30 days of the last dispositive motion decided.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2013.
10
11
12
______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
