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)

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