V'Guara Inc. v. Steve Dec et al

Filing 86

ORDER that a Hearing re 85 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines is set for 4/8/2014 at 02:00 PM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/1/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
V’GUARA, INC.,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend discovery deadlines, filed on March 31,

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
STEVE DEC,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:13-cv-0076-JAD-NJK

ORDER SETTING HEARING
(Docket No. 85)

17

2014. Docket No. 85. The parties are requesting extensions of the discovery cut-off, the deadline to

18

amend pleadings and adding parties, the expert disclosure deadline, the rebuttal expert disclosure

19

deadline, and the dispositive motions deadline. Id. at 5. All but the last of these deadlines have

20

expired, some several months ago. See id. Moreover, the dispositive motion deadline is set to

21

expire in eight days. See id. The stipulation seeks to extend all of those deadlines by nearly four

22

months. See id.

23

Local Rule 24-6 governs extensions of discovery deadlines. Pursuant to the rule, “All

24

motions or stipulations to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received no later

25

than twenty-one (21) days before expiration of the subject deadline.” Local Rule 26-4 (emphasis

26

added). Any motion or stipulation filed before 21 days prior to the expiration of the subject deadline

27

must be supported by a showing of good cause. Id. Any motion or stipulation filed less than 21 days

28

prior to the expiration of the subject deadline (or after the subject deadline has expired) must be

1

supported by a showing of excusable neglect. Id.

2

The stipulation provides two reasons for the Court to reopen all of the above discovery

3

deadlines and to extend the dispositive motion deadline. First, the stipulation indicates that the

4

parties did not obtain sufficient discovery during the discovery period. See id. at 4 (“discovery

5

stalled between the V’Guara Parties’ prior counsel and Dec’s counsel”). Second, the stipulation

6

indicates that Plaintiff’s current counsel substituted into this case after the close of discovery. Id.

7

Generally speaking, these reasons do not justify reopening or extending the deadlines at issue. See,

8

e.g., Paws Up Ranch, LLC v. Green, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 146149, *8-9 (D. Nev. Oct. 8, 2013);

9

Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 108235, *5 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013).

10

Accordingly, the Court hereby SETS a hearing on the pending stipulation for April 8, 2014,

11

at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3B. Counsel shall be prepared to argue why the stipulation should be

12

granted in light of the above deficiencies.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: April 1, 2014

15
16
17

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2