Carney v. Kaufman

Filing 24

ORDER Denying 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Final Disclosure of Expert Witness. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 9/15/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
RONALD CARNEY,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
B. JOHN KAUFMAN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00565-JAD-GWF
ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Disclosure
of Expert Witness (#23)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Disclosure of Expert Witness
(#23), filed on September 10, 2014.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 14, 2014. See Doc. #1. Defendant subsequently filed a

17

motion to extend time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was granted on May 1, 2014. See

18

Doc. #6. Defendant’s time to respond was extended to June 9, 2014. Id. On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff

19

filed a motion for pretrial conference, which was denied because the Defendant had not responded

20

nor had the parties attempted to meet and confer. See Dkt. #8. On June 2, 2014, Defendant filed a

21

Motion to Dismiss (#11), which is pending before the Court. See Dkt. #11.

22

On June 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document titled “SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH

23

LOCAL RULE 26-1(e)” in which he purported that the parties met and conferred. The document

24

seemingly appeared to be a stipulated discovery plan however lacked the necessary information,

25

discovery deadlines, and signatures from both parties. The Court Clerk summarily returned the

26

document to the Plaintiff, as it appeared to be a discovery document that should not have been filed

27

with the Court. On June 16, 2014 and subsequently on June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed two motions for

28

a Rule 16 Conference, which the Court dismissed as premature because the parties had not yet met

1

and conferred. See Dkt. 18. The Court did enter a scheduling order, however, setting the discovery

2

deadlines with a cut-off date scheduled for January 19, 2015. Id.

3

On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Entry of Proposed Stipulated Order & Consent

4

Judgement” therein alleging that the Defendant agreed that “there is nothing B. John Kaufman can do

5

about this civil action” and represented that the parties have agreed to a settlement. See Dkt. #19.

6

Noticeably absent from the alleged stipulated motion was Defendant’s signature. Plaintiff

7

subsequently filed an Interim Status Report therein alleging that the Defendant failed to meet and

8

confer or answer otherwise, but then went on to allege that “[t]he parties have exchanged disclosures

9

required by federal civil rules. And multiple motions and supplements have been served.” See Dkt.

10

#22 at 2. In his Affidavit in support of his interim report, Plaintiff requested that the Court schedule a

11

hearing “for proper discovery plans by reason of conduct shall have pretrial orders for trial.” Id. On

12

September 10, 2014, Plaintiff similarly filed the present Motion for Final Disclose of Expert Witness,

13

therein requesting that the Court schedule a “hearing for trial by reason of conduct shall have the

14

force & effect of final judgment in this case.” See Dkt. #23.

15

Pursuant to the discovery plan, the parties have until January 19, 2015 to complete discovery

16

and until March 18, 2015 within which to file their joint pretrial order. See Dkt. #18. The Court

17

therefore finds that Plaintiff’s request to schedule a trial date is premature. Accordingly,

18
19
20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Disclosure of Expert Witness
(#23) is denied.
DATED this 15th day of September, 2014.

21
22
23
24
25

_______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
_________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2