Ali v. City of North Las Vegas et al

Filing 49

ORDER that 40 Plaintiff's Motion to Stipulate Extending Time for Defendants to Answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories no later than April 5, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/22/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

FALASHA ALI,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02171-KJD-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Stipulate Extending Time for

14

Defendants to Answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (ECF No. 40), filed on February 21, 2017.

15

Defendants filed an Opposition (ECF No. 44) on March 7, 2017. Plaintiff did not file a reply. The

16

Court directed Plaintiff to file a copy of the interrogatories with the Court, which Plaintiff did on

17

March 16, 2017. See ECF No. 46.

18

Discovery closed on January 30, 2017. Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff served his

19

first set of interrogatories upon Defendants on January 6, 2017, which made the responses due no

20

later than February 6, 2017.1 Defendants refused to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories on the

21

grounds that they were untimely because the responses were due after the discovery cutoff. Plaintiff

22

filed the instant motion seeking to in effect extend the discovery deadline so that Defendants would

23

be required to respond to the interrogatories. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request and argue that

24

Plaintiff failed to provide good cause or excusable neglect for his failure to timely serve the

25

interrogatories.

26
27

Given the fact that Plaintiff is appearing in this action pro se and the fact that Plaintiff served
the interrogatories only a week late, which is not an extraordinary period of delay, the Court is

28
1

The deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories fell on February 5, 2017, which was a Sunday.
The deadline was therefore the following business day— February 6, 2017.

1

inclined to grant Plaintiff’s request. In addition, the Court finds that the interrogatories propounded

2

by Plaintiff appear to be relevant. However, because Plaintiff waited until the end of the discovery

3

period to begin conducting discovery, the Court will not consider extending any other discovery

4

deadlines or granting any further discovery requests.2 Accordingly.

5
6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stipulate Extending Time for
Defendants to Answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (ECF No. 40) is granted.

7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories no
later than April 5, 2017.

9

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2017.

10
11

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Because the Court will not extend any other discovery deadlines, Plaintiff’s request for a discovery conference is

denied.

2