Rimer v. State of Nevada ex rel Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 230

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 225 Motion for Extension of Time and Plaintiff's 226 Motion for Enlargement of Number of Requests for Admissions are Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/28/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )
STANLEY RIMER,

Case No. 2:14-cv-0889-RFB-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the court are Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time (ECF No. 225), and

11

for enlargement of number of requests for admissions (ECF No. 226), both filed on October 21,

12

2016. Defendants filed responses (ECF Nos. 227 and 228) on November 4, 2016, and Plaintiff filed

13

a reply to both responses (ECF No. 229) on November 11, 2016.

14

Plaintiff requests an extension to the deadline to serve his requests for admission on

15

Defendants, and for leave to file further requests for admission. Under Local Rule 26-4, a request to

16

extend a scheduled discovery deadline must specify the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied,

17

and show good cause for an extension.

18

Pursuant to this court’s order (ECF No. 222), the deadline for Plaintiff to serve Defendants

19

with revised requests for admissions was October 17, 2016. That order also set a limit on Plaintiff’s

20

requests for admissions to thirty total requests for all remaining Defendants. Defendants represent

21

that shortly before this deadline, Plaintiff attempted to re-serve Defendants with a set of unrevised

22

requests for admission that far exceeded the limit imposed by the court. Plaintiff does not contest

23

this, but asserts that the additional requests are necessary for his case.

24

However, Plaintiff provides no reason for his failure to serve Plaintiff with his revised

25

requests by the court’s deadline. Nor does Plaintiff show that there is good cause to extend the

26

deadline. As for the request to increase the number of requests for admission, the court finds no

27

grounds to amend its previous order on this matter.

28

1

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time (ECF No.
225), and for enlargement of number of requests for admissions (ECF No. 226) are DENIED.

3
4
5

DATED: November 28, 2016.

6
7

_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2