O'Grady-Sullivan v. The State of Nevada et al

Filing 111

ORDER Denying 104 and 105 Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and Denying 108 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Defendants' Motions as Moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties are to file a joint proposed pretrial order within 30 days from the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 06/24/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

TARA O’GRADY-SULLIVAN,
an individual,

Case No. 2:11-cv-00839-MMD-CWH
ORDER
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

(Defs.’ Motions for Summary Judgment
– dkt. nos. 104, 105;
Plf.’s Motion for Extension of Time
– dkt. no. 108)

Defendants.

14

Before the Court are two summary judgment motions filed by Defendants, as well

15

as Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Defendants’ Motions. (See dkt.

16

nos. 104, 105, 108). For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are denied.

17

The relevant procedural history leading up to the filing of these Motions bears

18

recounting here. In May 2012, during the pendency of discovery, Defendants filed two

19

summary judgment motions. (See dkt. nos. 57, 61.) Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d),

20

Plaintiff opposed summary judgment in light of significant discovery uncompleted at the

21

time the motions were filed. Since the then-operative discovery deadline was

22

September 3, 2012 ─ nearly three months after the motions were filed ─ the Court

23

denied Defendants’ Motions. (See dkt. no. 101.) Between the time when the motions

24

were filed and when the Court decided them, the discovery deadline was extended to

25

November 2, 2012, and the deadline for summary judgment motions to be filed

26

extended to December 3, 2012. (See dkt. no. 88.) December 3 passed, and the parties

27

filed no additional motions, and Defendants offered no additional notice that they

28

intended to supplement their original summary judgment motions.

1

After the Court’s denial of the summary judgment motions, the parties filed a joint

2

stipulation proposing to extend the discovery deadline and the dispositive motion

3

deadline. (See dkt. no. 102.) This stipulation was filed over four months after the

4

dispositive motion deadline passed. Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman denied their

5

stipulation, ruling that they failed to demonstrate excusable neglect as required by Local

6

Rule 6-1(b). (See dkt. no. 103.)

7

Nearly two months thereafter, and without warning, Defendants filed the instant

8

summary judgment motions. (See dkt. nos. 104, 105.) These Motions are untimely.

9

They were not filed within the dispositive motion deadline, and their attempts to extend

10

that deadline were explicitly rejected by the Court.

11

amount of time to bring these motions, they cannot now re-file their Motions.

12
13
14
15

Having waited an unjustifiable

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment (dkt. nos. 104, 105) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File
Response to Defendants’ Motions (dkt. no. 108) is DENIED as moot.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file a joint proposed pretrial

17

order in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 within thirty

18

(30) days from the entry of this Order.

19
20

DATED THIS 24th day of June 2013.

21
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2