Ventrella v. Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC dba Trump International Hotel Las Vegas

Filing 47

ORDER Denying 46 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/11/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

KENNETH VENTRELLA,

8
9
10

Plaintiff(s),
vs.
TRUMP RUFFIN TOWER I, LLC, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01450-LRH-NJK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST
TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES (Docket No. 46)

12
Pending before the Court appears to be a stipulation to extend discovery deadlines, see

13
14

Docket No. 46 (“Second Amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order”), which is hereby

15

DENIED. The pending request has a number of deficiencies. First, a request to extend discovery

16

deadlines shall be made by motion or stipulation. See Local Rule 26-4; see also Docket No. 30.

17

The pending request is fashioned as a discovery plan. Second, requests for extension must be

18

supported by a showing of good cause if filed more than 21 days before the expiration of the subject

19

deadline, and by a showing of excusable neglect if filed less than 21 days before the expiration of

20

the subject deadline. Local Rule 26-4; see also Docket No. 30. The pending request does not

21

attempt to make such a showing.1 Third, “[a]ny motion or stipulation to extend a deadline or to

22

reopen discovery shall include[, inter alia,]: (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; (b)

23

A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; [and] (c) The reasons why the

24

deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set

25

by the discovery plan.” Local Rule 26-4; see also Docket No. 30. The pending request fails to do

26

so.

27
28

1

The pending request also misstates Local Rule 26-4's timing requirements for requesting an
extension of discovery deadlines. See Docket No. 46 at 4.

1

The Court has already specifically reminded counsel of the above requirements. See Docket

2

No. 30. Nonetheless, counsel failed to take heed of these instructions. Counsel are again reminded

3

of these requirements and are hereby ORDERED to file any future requests for discovery-related

4

extensions in accordance with the requirements outlined above and in the Local Rules. Future

5

failure to abide by this Order or the Local Rules may result in the imposition of sanctions.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: March 11, 2013

8
9

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2