Bartech Systems International, Inc. v. Mobile Simple Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 459

ORDER that Defendant GEM's motion to extend the joint proposed pretrial order (ECF No. 456 ) is granted in part; the joint proposed pretrial order is due 4/12/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

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

BARTECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02422-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 456)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant GEM S.A.’s (“GEM”) motion to extend the deadline for the

17

joint proposed pretrial order. Docket No. 456. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 458.

18

No reply was filed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part Defendant GEM’s motion

19

to extend.

20

Defendant GEM requests a 60-day extension to the March 13, 2018 deadline for the joint proposed

21

pretrial order. Docket No. 456 at 2. Defendant GEM submits five reasons to extend the deadline: (1) the

22

parties scheduled a Court-ordered deposition for February 27, 2018; (2) the parties are involved in an

23

ongoing discovery dispute, which requires Court-ordered supplemental responses due March 12, 2018; (3)

24

Defendant GEM plans to “challenge certain portions of the Court’s order” of the supplemental responses

25

due on March 12, 2018; (4) Defendant GEM received supplemental production “of extensive data and

26

information” from Plaintiff on February 20, 2018; and (5) Defendant GEM’s counsel has previously

27

scheduled conflicting trial dates and other deadlines in the upcoming weeks. Id. at 2-3.

28

1

Plaintiff submits in opposition that the extension should be limited to 30 days because it had

2

previously stipulated to Defendant GEM’s initial request to a 30-day extension. Docket No. 458 at 3. In

3

opposition to Defendant GEM’s submissions, Plaintiff submits that: (1) outstanding discovery will be

4

substantially completed prior to the March 13, 2018 deadline; (2) the discovery dispute is not “ongoing”

5

as the Court has ordered Defendant GEM to provide supplemental responses; (3) an anticipated challenge

6

to the Court’s order does not permit Defendant GEM to withhold discovery; (4) Plaintiff’s supplemental

7

production is unlikely to affect compliance with the March 13, 2018 deadline; and (5) Defendant GEM’s

8

submissions as to its other upcoming deadlines are “vague and unsupported.” Id. at 6-7.

9

The Court finds that good cause has been shown for a 30-day extension. Accordingly, Defendant

10

GEM’s motion to extend the joint proposed pretrial order is GRANTED in part. Docket No. 456. The

11

joint proposed pretrial order is due April 12, 2018.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: March 1, 2018

14
15

________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2