Plank v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al
Filing
31
ORDER that 30 Motion to Extend Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/13/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
7
8
9
10
DAVID EDWIN PLANK,
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER
v.
(Mot Ext Disc – Dkt. #30)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12
Case No. 2:12-cv-02205-JCM-PAL
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery (Fourth Request) (Dkt. #30).
The motion was filed March 6, 2015, the last date to complete discovery after three extensions.
14
The court’s order approving the parties’ third stipulated extension indicated that no
15
further extensions would be allowed. See Order (Dkt. #28) entered October 2, 2014. Plaintiff
16
seeks an extension from March 6, 2015, until April 20, 2015, to complete discovery. Plaintiff
17
still needs to depose two officers involved in the incident giving rise to his complaint, Officer
18
McIntyre and Officer Swanbeck. Officer Swanbeck lives on the east coast and will need to be
19
subpoenaed for his deposition. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to propound additional written
20
discovery to Defendant Mayoral as a result of information learned from his deposition. Finally,
21
Plaintiff states that the parties still need to depose experts and rebuttal experts. Like the prior
22
stipulations to extend the discovery cutoff the motion states that the “recitation of discovery to be
23
completed is not intended to be limiting, but is set forth to advise the Court of remaining
24
discovery.”
25
The Complaint (Dkt. #1) in this case was filed December 28, 2012. The parties have
26
requested and received three extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines after
27
requesting and receiving a stay of discovery while the underlying criminal case was resolved.
28
The initial Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. #22) was entered January 13, 2014, and
1
1
established a July 7, 2014, discovery cutoff. The court granted the parties’ first request to extend
2
the discovery in an Order (Dkt. #24) entered May 8, 2014, granting the parties a 90-day
3
extension until October 6, 2014. The court granted a second 90-day extension of the discovery
4
plan cutoff July 18, 2014, and extended the discovery cutoff until January 5, 2015. The parties
5
submitted their third request to extend the discovery deadlines September 29, 2014 (Dkt. #27).
6
The only additional discovery that the parties had completed between the second extension and
7
the third extension was scheduling Defendant Mayoral’s deposition. The parties’ third request
8
indicated that the discovery remaining consisted of Plaintiff deposing Officers McIntyre and
9
Swanbeck, disclosing and deposing experts and rebuttal experts, and “receiving information for
10
twelve local hotels.”
11
The parties have had more than 14 months to complete discovery after the stay they
12
requested was lifted. As indicated, the court granted the parties’ third extension indicating no
13
further extensions would be allowed. Since then, the only discovery that has been completed is
14
Plaintiff’s production of his expert disclosure, Defendant Mayoral’s production of his expert
15
disclosure, and Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert disclosure. Defendant Mayoral was deposed November
16
7, 2014, and Plaintiff provides no explanation for his failure to serve additional written discovery
17
he alleges became necessary after deposing Mayoral four months earlier. No explanation is
18
provided why the parties have not scheduled depositions of their experts and rebuttal expert.
19
Under these circumstances, the court finds that Plaintiff has not established good cause or
20
excusable neglect for a fourth extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines.
21
Accordingly,
22
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery (Dkt. #30) is DENIED.
23
DATED this 13th day of March, 2015.
24
25
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?