Cortes v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) et al

Filing 50

ORDER Denying 45 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2

***

3

GLADYS CORTES,
4

Case No. 2:14–cv–1235–KJD–VCF

Plaintiff,
5

vs.

ORDER

6

REPUBLIC MORTGAGE, LLC; et.al.,

RENEWED MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
(DOC. #45)

7

Defendants.

8
9
10
11

This matter involves Plaintiff Gladys Cortes’ civil action against Republic Mortgage and other
Defendants. Before the court are Cortes’ renewed motion to re-open discovery (Doc. #45), the
Defendants’ response (Doc. #47), and Cortes’ reply (Doc. #49). For the reasons stated below, Cortes’

12

motion is denied.
13

I. Background
14

In June 2014, Plaintiff Gladys Cortes sued the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants’ lacked
15
16
17

standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings against Cortes’ home. (Doc. #1). The court entered a
discovery plan and scheduling order setting June 3, 2015 as the discovery cutoff date. (Doc. #25). The

18

parties stipulated to extend the discovery cutoff date to September 3, 2015. (Doc. #29). On October 10,

19

2015, Cortes brought her first motion to reopen discovery. (Doc. #35). The court held a hearing on

20

November 23, 2015. (Doc. #41). At the hearing, the court granted a limited reopening of discovery to

21

allow Cortes to take the PMK deposition of Defendant Nationstar; all other requests to reopen discovery

22

were denied. (Id.). Cortes now brings her second motion to reopen discovery, in which she argues that

23
24

discovery needs to be reopened so that she may obtain certain responsive documents from the
Defendants.

25

1

II. Legal Standard

1
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) requires the court to enter a scheduling order that governs,

3

among other issues, the discovery cutoff dates. “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and

4

with the judge’s consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily

5

consider the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

6

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule, ‘if it cannot

7

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id.

8
9
10

III. Discussion
Cortes fails to show good cause to reopen discovery. Cortes offers three reasons why discovery
should be reopened: (1) she believed that she could resolve her discovery dispute with the Defendant’s

11

without court intervention, (2) she only learned that the Defendants possessed certain responsive
12

documents after Nationstar’s PMK deposition, and (3) the Defendant’s failure to produce responsive
13
14
15

documents during discovery necessitated Cortes’ motion to reopen discovery. Cortes’ arguments in
favor of reopening discovery are unpersuasive. Cortes cites to no authority that supports her position

16

that discovery should be reopened; rather she reiterates why she believes she is entitled to responsive

17

documents. Cortes’ arguments might have been appropriate as part of a motion to compel, after an

18

appropriate consultation with opposing counsel. They do not constitute “good cause” in a motion to

19

reopen discovery.

20
21
22

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,
/// /// ///
/// /// ///

23

/// /// ///
24

/// /// ///
25

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cortes motion to reopen discovery (Doc. #45) is DENIED.
1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of March, 2016.

4

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3