Progressive Direct Insurance Company v. Hornbuckle et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying without prejudice 20 Stipulation to Continue Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 06/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE
COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT HORNBUCKLE, GEORGE THOMAS, )
and LORA WRIGHT
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-02293-GMN-NJK
ORDER

15

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation and Order to Continue Discovery, filed on

16

June 13, 2014. See Docket No. 20. Therein, the parties seek to extend certain discovery deadlines

17

established by the scheduling order in this case, which was approved by the Court on March 28, 2014.

18

See Docket No. 14. One of the deadlines the parties seek to extend is the expert witness disclosure

19

deadline, which is currently set to expire on June 24, 2014. Id., at 2.

20

Local Rule 26-4 provides that any stipulation to extend a deadline shall include “(a) A statement

21

specifying the discovery completed; (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be

22

completed; (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not

23

completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) A proposed schedule for completing

24

all remaining discovery.” The parties’ stipulation does not contain this information. See Docket No.

25

20.

26

Local Rule 26-4 also requires that “[a]pplications to extend any date set by the discovery plan,

27

scheduling order, or other order must ... be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension.”

28

In addition, requests to extend made after the expiration of the subject deadline “shall not be granted

1

unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” Id. The

2

stipulation does not demonstrate why good cause exists in this instance to extend the deadlines

3

established in the scheduling order. See Docket No. 20. Further, the parties have attempted to stipulate

4

to an extension of the deadline for initial expert disclosures, but did not submit their request at least 21

5

days prior to the expiration of the deadline. Id. The pending request provides only cursory discussion

6

of why the deadline should be extended, see id., at 2, which the Court finds insufficient to demonstrate

7

excusable neglect.

8

Because the pending stipulation does not address the excusable neglect factors or a showing of

9

good cause, and because the requirements of Local Rule 26-4(a-d) have not been met, the stipulation is

10

hereby DENIED without prejudice.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: June 16, 2014.

13
14
15

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2