USF Insurance Company v. Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc. et al

Filing 83

ORDER Granting in part 78 Motion to Extend Time re 57 Amended Scheduling Order. The new dispositive motion deadline is July 16, 2012. The deadline for filing the joint pretrial order is thirty days after the Court's last decision on any dispositive motion. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/24/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 11 12 13 14 USF INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Case No. 2:10-cv-01513-MMD-VCF Plaintiff, ORDER v. SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTER, INC.; d/b/a SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTER, #377, an Ohio corporation, and J&I MAINTENANCE, a Utah corporation, Defendants . 15 17 SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTER, INC. d/b/a SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTER, #377, an Ohio corporation, 18 Counterclaimant, 16 19 20 21 22 v. USF INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation; and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive, Counterdefendants. 23 24 25 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend the 26 Deadline for Filing of Dispositive Motions (dkt. no. 78). 27 Defendant’s Motion. 28 amend the Scheduling Order to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions to Plaintiff has opposed In its reply brief, Defendant clarified that it is seeking to only 1 August 13, 2012, which is sixty days after the deadline to complete the deposition of 2 Alan Kaufman. The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and other motions and papers 3 on file and good cause appearing, will grant Defendant’s request in part. 4 The second Amended Scheduling Order (dkt. no. 57) set the deadline to file 5 dispositive motions at thirty days after the discovery deadline, which was February 16, 6 2012. That Order also provided for any request to extend any deadline established in 7 the Order by January 27, 2012. On January 20, 2012, which falls within the deadline for 8 requesting extensions, Defendant moved to compel the continuing deposition of Sally 9 Rock and the deposition of Alan Kaufman. (Dkt. no. 58.) The Court granted 10 Defendant’s motion and established a new deadline for the continuing deposition of Ms. 11 Rock and the deposition of Mr. Kaufman. (Dkt. no. 67.) The parties then stipulated to 12 extend the deadline for taking Mr. Kaufman’s deposition by about another month to 13 June 14, 2012. (Dkt. no. 76.) 14 The Court is vested with “broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 15 litigation.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 16 2002). The Scheduling Order may be “modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 17 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court finds that good cause exists here. 18 The dispositive motion deadline established in the second Amended Scheduling 19 Order is triggered by the discovery deadline. In granting Defendant’s motion to take 20 depositions, the Court found that during the course of about six months, from June 15, 21 2011 to December 22, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel led Defendant’s counsel to believe that 22 Ms. Rock’s continuing deposition would be scheduled. (Dkt. no. 67.) Plaintiff’s counsel 23 also did not raise any objection to Mr. Kaufman’s deposition during that period of time. 24 Discovery is completed other than Mr. Kaufman’s deposition, which Defendant believes 25 will provide evidence relevant to Defendant’s anticipated motion for summary judgment. 26 Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the dispositive motion deadline should 27 be extended to thirty days after the deadline for taking Mr. Kaufman’s deposition. 28 2 1 2 3 The new dispositive motion deadline is July 16, 2012. The deadline for filing the joint pretrial order is thirty days after the Court’s last decision on any dispositive motion. ENTERED THIS 24th day of May 2012. 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?