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)

Download PDF
    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?