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)

Download PDF
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

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?