Calvert v. Ellis et al

Filing 113

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 98 Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Plaintiff Designating Rebuttal Expert to John Schneider, Ph.D. Plaintiff's 108 Motion to Compel Mandatory Settlement Conference is Denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/1/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

LAUREN CALVERT,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to reopen discovery. Docket No.

17

98. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ response, and Plaintiff’s reply. Docket

18

Nos. 98, 104, 112.

10
Plaintiff,
11
12

vs.

13

MICHAEL W. ELLIS, et al.,

14
Defendants.

2:13-cv-00464-APG-NJK

ORDER
(Docket Nos. 98, 108)

19

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel a mandatory settlement conference.

20

Docket No. 108. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ response. Docket

21

Nos. 108, 111. The Court finds these matters properly resolved without oral argument. See Local

22

Rule 78-2.

23

I. BACKGROUND

24

This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May

25

6, 2011. Docket No. 52, at 2. According to the Second Amended Complaint, Michael Wayne Ellis

26

struck Plaintiff Lauren Calvert’s vehicle while she was driving in Clark County, Nevada. Docket

27

No. 49, at 3. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff alleges that she sustained injuries to her neck, back,

28

legs, arms, organs, and systems. Id., at 5. On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant action in the

1

District Court for Clark County, Nevada. Docket No. 1, at 2. Thereafter, Defendants removed the

2

case to this Court on March 20, 2013. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff amended her Complaint on March 20,

3

2013, Docket No. 7, and subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 6, 2014.

4

Docket No. 49.

5

II. MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

6

Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of

7

designating a rebuttal expert to Dr. John Schneider.1 Docket No. 98. Plaintiff requests 30 days to

8

designate a rebuttal expert and an additional 30 days to take Dr. Schneider’s deposition. Id., at 9.

9

In their response, Defendants request that they be afforded the opportunity to depose Plaintiff’s

10

designated expert within 30 days of designation. Plaintiff, in her reply, agrees with this request. See

11

Docket Nos. 104, 112.

12

Local Rule 26-4 sets out the requirements for applications to extend scheduled deadlines.

13

Despite the fact that Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements in Local Rule 26-4 in requesting

14

an extension to depose Dr. Schneider, the Court finds good cause and excusable neglect exists, and

15

therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of Plaintiff

16

designating a rebuttal expert within 30 days of this Order and an additional 30 days for Plaintiff to

17

take Dr. Schneider’s deposition. Defendants will also have the opportunity to depose Plaintiff’s

18

expert within 30 days of designation.

19

III. MOTION TO COMPEL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

20

On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel mandatory settlement conference

21

because Plaintiff represents that negotiations “are at a complete stop.” Docket No. 108, at 3.

22

Plaintiff urges that “[a]n aggressive mediator or settlement conference judge is needed to re-focus

23

the parties on the merits of this case, rather than allow them to be consumed with emotions, personal

24

feelings, and the desire to ‘win.’” Id., at 4-5. Defendants, however, argue that such a conference is

25
26
27
1

28

On August 8, 2014, the Court issued an order allowed Plaintiff 30 days from the date of that
order to depose Dr. Schneider. Docket No. 87, at 7. Plaintiff failed to do so.
-2-

1

premature because the parties have already agreed to use an intermediary, Joseph J. Bongiovi.2

2

Docket No. 111, at 3. Thus, Defendants request that the parties be permitted to continue to work

3

with Mr. Bongiovi to reach a potential settlement. Id., at 3.

4

Pursuant to the Local Rules, the Court has the discretion to compel participation in settlement

5

conferences in any appropriate civil case. Local Rule 16-5. While the Court encourages both parties

6

to cultivate their settlement interests, the Court fails to see the necessity of scheduling a settlement

7

conference at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a settlement conference (Docket

8

No. 108) is denied without prejudice.

9

IV. CONCLUSION

10

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited

12

Purpose of Plaintiff Designating Rebuttal Expert to John Schneider, Ph..D. (Docket No. 98) is

13

GRANTED.

14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Mandatory Settlement
Conference (Docket No. 108) is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED: October 1, 2014

17
18
19
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Additionally, in a stipulation filed August 28, 2014, the parties stated that they were
“engaging an intermediary to explore the potential for settlement and productivity of another
mediation” and that they “anticipate[d] confidentially submitting to the intermediary their respective
minimum/maximum settlement positions after which time the intermediary will advise as to the
potential for settlement and potential productivity of another mediation.” Docket No. 97, at 2.
-3-