Trueman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 38 Stipulation to Extend Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/3/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12

KRISTIN TRUEMAN,

13

Plaintiff(s),

14

vs.

15

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

16
17
18

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01872-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 38)

Pending before the Court is the parties’ second stipulation to extend discovery deadlines.

19

Docket No. 38. Under the Local Rules, a request to extend a deadline submitted 21 days or more

20

in advance of the expiration of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause

21

for the extension. LR 26-4. Additionally, “[a] request made after the expiration of the subject

22

deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result

23

of excusable neglect.” Id.

24

The reasoning in the instant request is nearly identical to the reasoning in the parties’ first

25

request. See Docket Nos. 22, 38. The Court has already explained that such reasoning does not

26

qualify as good cause. See Docket No. 23 at 1 (granting the parties’ first request “as a one-time

27

courtesy” despite the parties’ failure to show good cause). Moreover, three of the five deadlines at

28

issue have already passed, yet the parties fail to even address the excusable neglect standard.

1

Further, the Court has already explained that the parties must diligently conduct discovery

2

and that it will scrutinize any extension requests for diligence. Docket No. 23 at 2. Nonetheless,

3

the parties have failed to make any showing of diligence, as it appears that they have engaged in

4

little to no discovery since June. See Docket No. 22 at 1-2; Docket No. 38 at 1-2. Instead, the

5

parties appear to mistakenly believe that a pending dispositive motion exempts them from their

6

discovery obligations. As a result, it appears that the parties cannot demonstrate diligence.

7

Nonetheless, the Court gives them the opportunity to do so if they can.

8

Accordingly, the parties’ second stipulation to extend discovery deadlines (Docket No. 38)

9

is hereby DENIED. The parties may submit a renewed stipulation, if they so choose, that addresses

10

the applicable standards, no later than November 10, 2016.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: November 3, 2016

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge