Tarr et al v. Narconon Fresh Start

Filing 69

ORDER denying 68 Stipulation without prejudice. The parties shall submit a revised stipulation no later than May 1, 2015, that complies with the Local Rules. In the alternative, the parties may submit a request for a stay of discovery that addresses all relevant standards, no later than May 1, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/24/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
CATHY TARR, et al.,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines (Docket No.

17

68), which is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Within the stipulation, the parties state that they

18

are seeking to extend discovery “in an effort to promote judicial economy” and “to facilitate the

19

coordination of a mass mediation.” Docket No. 68, at 2. The parties further state that the deadlines

20

that fall before the mediation “require the Parties to expend significant amounts of time and money

21

to appropriately litigate and defend this claim.” Id., at 2-3. The parties are essentially requesting a

22

stay of discovery, pending the resolution of the mediation.

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
NARCONON FRESH START, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 68)

23

Courts have inherent power to stay the cases before them as a matter of controlling their own

24

docket and calendar. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also

25

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110-13 (9th Cir. 2005) (reviewing Ninth Circuit law on

26

issue, and finding a stay was inappropriate). The movant bears the burden of showing that a stay is

27

warranted. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). In this case, the parties have not shown

28

that a stay of discovery is appropriate. For example, “[a] stay should not be granted unless it appears

1

likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of

2

the claims presented to the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th

3

Cir. 1979). Here, it appears that the “mass mediation” has yet to be scheduled, but may occur “mid

4

to end of May 2015, schedules permitting.” Docket No. 68, at 2.

5

Furthermore, to the extent the parties are not seeking a stay of discovery, the stipulation to

6

extend discovery is untimely with respect to the deadline for the rebuttal expert disclosure. The

7

current rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, May 6, 2015, will expire in less than 21 days. See Docket

8

No. 66, at 3. Parties must request extensions to deadlines in the scheduling order at least 21 days

9

before they are set to expire. Local Rule 26-4. These rules are in place to prevent parties from

10

unnecessarily seeking extensions at the eleventh hour or after the expiration of a deadline. When

11

parties fail to timely request an extension of the deadlines subject to their request, they must establish

12

excusable neglect for the extension sought. See, e.g., Local Rule 26-4. The parties fail to address

13

(let alone establish) excusable neglect in the pending stipulation with respect to the rebuttal expert

14

disclosure deadline.

15

Accordingly, the stipulation to extend (Docket No. 68) is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

16

The parties shall submit a revised stipulation no later than May 1, 2015, that complies with the Local

17

Rules. In the alternative, the parties may submit a request for a stay of discovery that addresses all

18

relevant standards, no later than May 1, 2015.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: April 24, 2015

21
22
23
24

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
-2-