Meadows v. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Filing 37

ORDER Denying 35 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court adopts Defendants' proposal to extend discovery by 30 days and to extend the deadline for responses to interrogatories and document requests by 14 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/6/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

TRACY MEADOWS,

11

Plaintiffs,
vs.

12
13

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-02188-JAD-CWH
ORDER

16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (doc.
17

# 35), filed November 3, 2015, and Defendants’ response (doc. # 36), filed November 4, 2015.1

18
In her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to extend discovery deadlines by 60 days because of
19
scheduling issues arising from her counsel’s case load.
20
Defendants, in response, oppose Plaintiff’s request, but state that they would be willing to
21
extend discovery by 30 days and to extend the deadline for responses to interrogatories and
22
document requests by 14 days. Defendants explain that Plaintiff’s counsel was “undoubtedly aware”
23
of the trial date in his other case because that date was set three months ago and therefore counsel
24
should have allowed sufficient time to manage trial preparation in that case while managing
25
discovery deadlines in this case. Defendants next point out that a 30-day extension of discovery
26
27
28

1
Also before the Court is a letter from defense counsel, faxed directly to this Court’s chambers, informing the
Court that all parties will be at the federal courthouse in Las Vegas, Nevada, for a deposition on November 9, 2015.
Given such, the parties ask the Court to consider hearing Plaintiff’s motion on that day. Because the Court addresses
Plaintiff’s motion in the instant order, the request for a motion hearing is denied as moot.

1

would result in a discovery cut-off in February 2016, which would accommodate Plaintiff’s

2

counsel’s three-week trial in November 2015 for the other case, and would allow sufficient time for

3

the completion of discovery in this case. Defendants also point out that a 14-day extension for

4

responses to interrogatories and document requests is appropriate because Plaintiff has denied nearly

5

every request of Defendants’ propounded requests for admissions. As such, the answers to

6

Defendants’ interrogatories and document requests would allow Defendants to ascertain the factual

7

basis for Plaintiff’s denials. Defendants further argue that requiring them to wait another two

8

months would prevent them from obtaining crucial information. Finally, Defendants point out that

9

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate excusable neglect to explain why a 60-day extension of discovery is

10
11
12
13
14

warranted in this case.
The Court has reviewed the parties’ arguments and agrees with Defendants. As such, the
Court denies the instant motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery
Deadlines (doc. # 35) is denied.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court adopts Defendants’ proposal to extend

16

discovery by 30 days and to extend the deadline for responses to interrogatories and document

17

requests by 14 days.

18

DATED: November 6, 2015

19
20

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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-