Heldt et al v. American Invsco Corporation et al

Filing 91

ORDER Denying without prejudice 90 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/21/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
BRUCE COUTURIER, et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
AMERICAN INVSCO CORP., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Nos.

2:12-cv-01104-APG-NJK
2:12-cv-01106-APG-NJK
2:12-cv-01107-APG-NJK
2:12-cv-01108-APG-NJK
2:12-cv-01110-APG-NJK
2:12-cv-01111-APG-NJK

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATION TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

Pending before the Court is a renewed stipulation to extend various deadlines in the amended

17

scheduling order, filed July 8, 2013. Docket No. 102, 2:12-cv-1104-APG-NJK; Docket No. 84,

18

2:12-cv-1106-APG-NJK; Docket No. 90, 2:12-cv-1107-APG-NJK; Docket No. 82, 2:12-cv-1108-

19

APG-NJK; Docket No. 86, 2:12-cv-1110-APG-NJK; Docket No. 76, 2:12-cv-1111-APG-NJK. The

20

pending stipulations seek to extend the discovery deadline from October 15, 2013 to January 31,

21

2014 for the limited purpose of conducting five depositions. For the reasons discussed more fully

22

below, the stipulation is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

23

Overview

24

As this Court has explained previously on multiple occasions, requests to extend deadlines in

25

the scheduling order must be submitted at least 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.

26

See, e.g., Order July 9, 2013 (explaining standards and citing past orders explaining standards).

27

Requests filed after that time must be supported by a showing of excusable neglect. See Local Rule

28

26-4. In this case, the pending stipulations were filed on October 18, 2013, while the discovery

1

cutoff expired on October 15, 2013. See Order, July 9, 2013. Hence, the parties must show both

2

good cause for the requested extension and excusable neglect for their failure to request the

3

extension at least 21 days before the discovery cutoff.

4

PMK Depositions

5

With respect to the PMK depositions listed, the parties stipulate that the depositions were

6

noticed and set to proceed before the current discovery cutoff, but they were unable to proceed due

7

to a scheduling error. Although there appears to be good cause and perhaps excusable neglect for

8

this request, the stipulation does not provide sufficient information. For example, there is no

9

explanation as to what “scheduling error” occurred, when was it clear to the parties that there was a

10

scheduling error, and why the pending stipulation was not submitted at least 21 days in advance of

11

the discovery cutoff.

12

Defendant Nicholas Gouletas

13

With respect to the deposition of Nicholas Gouletas, it again appears that there may be good

14

cause and perhaps excusable neglect, but the stipulation fails to provide sufficient information. The

15

parties indicate that this deposition was noticed and set prior to the current discovery cut-off. The

16

parties indicate that the deposition could not proceed as planned because Mr. Gouletas’ physician

17

served a letter on Plaintiffs indicating that he is in poor health and unable to be deposed until at least

18

January 2014. But the parties fail to explain, for example, when that letter was served, so that the

19

Court can determine whether the letter could support a finding of excusable neglect for not

20

requesting an extension of the discovery deadline at least 21 days before its expiration.

21

Amber Morelli

22

With respect to the deposition of Amber Morelli, the Court finds that neither good cause nor

23

excusable neglect has been shown. As an initial matter, the parties appear to state that Ms. Morelli’s

24

deposition was “noticed and set prior to the current discovery cut-off” but contradict that statement

25

in asserting that they have been unable to serve Ms. Morelli with a deposition subpoena. The

26

stipulation indicates that Ms. Morelli has been evading service. Unfortunately, it provides no further

27

details, such as (1) the attempts that have been made to serve Ms. Morelli (and the dates, thereof), or

28

(2) why the parties did not bring Ms. Morelli’s purported evasion to the Court’s attention prior to the
2

1

expiration of the discovery cut-off. The mere assertion that a would-be deponent may be evading

2

service of a subpoena does not necessarily translate to good cause for extending the discovery cut-

3

off. See Coleman v. District of Columbia, 284 F.R.D. 16, 21 (D.D.C. 2012) (affirming denial of

4

request to extend discovery notwithstanding possibility that would-be deponent was evading

5

service). In short, the Court has insufficient information before it to find either good cause or

6

excusable neglect exist with respect to the requested extension of the discovery period to take the

7

deposition of Ms. Morelli.

8

Conclusion

9
10

For the reasons stated above, the stipulation to extend discovery is DENIED without
prejudice.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: October 21, 2013

13
14

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3