Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 263

ORDER that 216 Plaintiff's Motion seeking an order to deny any dispositive motions deadline; to extend the discovery deadline; and to require all current outstanding requests be answered and, if deficient, permit additional requests is DENIED. The Court hereby ORDERS that dispositive motions shall be filed no later than August 29, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
RONALD R. SANTOS,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01251-KJD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 216)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking an order to deny any dispositive motions

17

deadline; to extend the discovery deadline; and to require all current outstanding requests be answered

18

and, if deficient, permit additional requests. Docket No. 216. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s

19

motion, Plaintiff’s supplement, Defendant’s response, and Plaintiff’s reply. Docket Nos. 216, 217, 220,

20

221. The Court finds the matter resolved without oral argument. See LR 78-1. For the reasons that

21

follow, Plaintiff’s motion, Docket No. 216, is DENIED.

22

I.

Procedural History

23

On February 25, 2013, this case was stayed pending an early inmate mediation. Docket No. 15.

24

On May 24, 2013, the Court lifted the stay, as the parties did not reach a settlement at the mediation.

25

Docket No. 22. On October 3, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling order after Defendants filed an

26

answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Docket No. 64. That scheduling order set the

27

dispositive motions deadline for February 2, 2015, which was approximately 30 days after the discovery

28

cut-off. Id. at 1.

1

On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery period. Docket No. 87. On

2

December 8, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and extended the discovery cut-off to April 1,

3

2015. Docket No. 88 at 1.

4

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion to extend the discovery period. Docket No.

5

105. On March 5, 2015, the Court further extended the discovery cut-off to June 30, 2015, because

6

various defendants had delayed in responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Docket No. 108.

7

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the case, as he was on suicide watch and,

8

therefore, unable to receive legal mail. Docket No. 127. On June 24, 2015, the Court stayed the case.

9

Docket No. 128. On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he represented that he had been

10

discharged from the mental health unit after being on suicide watch after only five days. Docket No.

11

130 at 2. On July 20, 2015, the Court lifted the stay. Docket No. 134.

12

On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a new scheduling order. Docket No. 140. As

13

Defendants admitted that they had not provided timely discovery responses, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

14

motion and set the discovery cut-off for September 28, 2015. Docket No. 141 at 2. On September 14,

15

2015, Plaintiff filed a third motion to extend, which the Court granted, extending the discovery deadline

16

to October 28, 2015. Docket Nos. 156, 157.

17

II.

Discussion

18

A “district court has inherent power ‘to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with

19

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” United States v. U.S. Dist. Court

20

for N. Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,

21

254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936)). This broad discretion extends to setting filing deadlines.

22

Robertson v. FedEx Nat. Ltl, Inc., 2010 WL 10020690, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2010).

23

Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the discovery cut-off and delay in setting a dispositive

24

motions deadline until all outstanding discovery requests are satisfied. Docket No. 216 at 5. In

25

response, Defendants “acknowledge that some of Plaintiff’s discovery has not yet been answered[.]”

26

Docket No. 220 at 7. Nonetheless, Defendants submit that a dispositive motions deadline needs to be

27

set, as “the prior orders extending time have not contemplated deadlines for motions for summary

28

judgement [sic].” Docket No. 220 at 9.
2

1

As the parties have enjoyed a discovery period of over a year, twice the presumptively

2

reasonable discovery period in LR 26-1(b), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an extension of

3

the discovery cut-off. Further, the Local Rules require the Court to issue a scheduling order, which

4

usually contains the dispositive motions deadline, well before discovery is completed. See LR 26-1(a).

5

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a delay in setting the dispositive motions

6

deadline. The Court hereby ORDERS that dispositive motions shall be filed no later than August 29,

7

2016. All motions for summary judgment shall comply in full with the requirements of LR 56-1.

8

Additionally, the Clerk’s Office shall issue a Pretrial Notice Order five days past the due date for filing

9

dispositive motions or the date all dispositive motions are resolved, whichever is later. The Court

10

further DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling responses to every outstanding discovery

11

request, as Plaintiff fails to provide the text of each discovery request, the response if any, and an

12

explanation as to why he is entitled to that discovery. LR 26-7; see also Santos v. Baca, 2015 WL

13

6956643, *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 10, 2015).

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: July 29, 2016.

16
17
18

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3