Brown v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 106

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 104 Stipulation for Extension of Time re Discovery (Third Request). Discovery due by 9/1/2017. Motions due by 11/1/2017. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/1/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/4/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

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

CHARON L. BROWN,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., )
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01670-APG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 104)

16

Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the discovery period and set a deadline to file

17

a motion for further extension. Docket No. 104. The parties agree on some discovery that remains, but not

18

on other discovery. To that end, the parties agree to extend the deadline for (at least) the agreed upon

19

discovery, to set the deadline to for Plaintiff to file a motion “for additional discovery,” and to set various

20

other deadlines at unspecified dates a certain number of days after other occurrences in the case. See id.

21

at 3-4.

22

The Court declines to adopt the approach taken in the stipulation. The parties have agreed that

23

discovery should be extended 120 days for Plaintiff to conduct at least the agreed upon discovery. Docket

24

No. 104 at 4. While the parties disagree as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery during that period,

25

they fail to explain why that dispute should be resolved through a motion to conduct additional discovery.

26

Generally speaking, parties propound discovery without Court approval. Moreover, the approach advocated

27

by the parties’ leaves the deadlines in this case in limbo, with unspecified dates keyed off of future events,

28

rather than calendar days. Compare Docket No. 104 at 4 (setting, for example, the discovery cutoff at 120-

1

days from the issuance of an order on the motion for additional discovery) with Local Rule 26-1(b)(1)

2

(providing that discovery plans must provide “the calendar date on which discovery will close”). The

3

Court finds the better approach to be that Plaintiff should propound the discovery that he believes is proper

4

during the extended 120-day discovery period. To the extent Defendants believe that any such discovery

5

is not proper, including that it is untimely given the parties’ prior stipulations and/or the Court’s prior

6

orders, then they may file a motion for protective order or seek other appropriate relief from the Court

7

following a pre-filing conference and in compliance with all other applicable requirements.1 If the parties

8

are unable to agree on that discovery, the Court would have before it a concrete dispute and copies of any

9

disputed discovery actually propounded. See Local Rule 26-7(b).

10

Accordingly, the stipulation is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows. The discovery

11

cutoff is hereby EXTENDED to September 1, 2017. The deadline for discovery motions is hereby

12

EXTENDED to October 2, 2017. The deadline for dispositive motions is hereby EXTENDED to

13

November 1, 2017. The deadline for filing the joint proposed pretrial order is EXTENDED to December

14

1, 2017, unless a dispositive motion is pending at that time. See Local Rule 26-1(b)(5).

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: May 4, 2017

17

__________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The Court herein expresses no opinion as to whether the additional discovery is proper. The
pending stipulation provides extra time for briefing the proposed motion for additional discovery. Docket
No. 104 at 4. To be clear, any motion filed by Defendant as outlined here shall be briefed pursuant to the
default briefing schedule, Local Rule 7-2(b) (providing 14 days for a response and 7 days for a reply), unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.
2