Williams v. American Credit & Collections, LLC et al

Filing 37

ORDER Denying 35 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/12/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 MARIAN V. WILLIAMS, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. 13 AMERICAN CREDIT & COLLECTIONS, LLC, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:16-cv-00890-JCM-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 35) 16 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the discovery cutoff and subsequent deadlines 17 by 90 days. Docket No. 35. The request is seeking a 50% increase to the presumptively reasonable 18 discovery period of 180 days. See Local Rule 26-1. “The use of orders establishing a firm discovery 19 cutoff date is commonplace, and has impacts generally helpful to the orderly progress of litigation, so 20 that the enforcement of such an order should come as a surprise to no one.” Cornwell v. Electra Cent. 21 Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 2006). 22 The reasons provided for the extension requested in this case are that (1) Plaintiff will receive 23 certain confidential information on or before October 24, 2016, and wishes to review that information 24 before taking Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and (2) the parties are concerned there may be 25 availability issues hindering the ability to complete depositions before the discovery cutoff of November 26 14, 2016. Docket No. 35 at 3. Neither reason establishes good cause. Plaintiff will receive the 27 information cited at least three weeks before the close of discovery, and the parties have failed to explain 28 1 why that is not sufficient time to prepare for Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. See id.1 Moreover, 2 speculative concerns about scheduling conflicts are not good cause for an extension given that the parties 3 have more than a month to coordinate schedules to obtain depositions before the close of discovery. 4 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: October 12, 2016 ______________________________________ ___________________________ _ _ NANCY J. KOPPE NCY KOPPE E United States Magistrate Judge Magistrate ed a ist t s 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Nor is it clear why it has taken so long for Defendant to produce the documents, whether they are confidential or not. Documents should generally be produced within 30 days of the service of a request for production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). The requests for production were served in this case on May 23, 2016, see Docket No. 35 at 2, but Defendant did not provide responses until August 19, 2016, id., and the parties did not seek a stipulated protective order until September 26, 2016, id. Moreover, it is unclear why Defendant was not already in the process of gathering the documents for production so that they could be produced promptly upon the entry of the stipulated protective order. While the Court appreciates parties cooperating with one another during discovery, cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29 (parties may stipulate to extensions not impacting court deadlines), the parties provide no explanation why the documents at issue are set to be produced five months after they were requested. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?