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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?