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)
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?