Rice v. Clark County School District

Filing 53

ORDER that 34 Motion to Re-Open Limited Discovery is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/20/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

LESLIE RICE,

8
9
10

v.

13

Plaintiff,

ORDER

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

(Mot Re-Open Disc – ECF No. 34)

Defendant.

11
12

Case No. 2:16-cv-01709-JCM-PAL

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open Limited Discovery (ECF No. 34). The
court has reviewed the motion and Defendant’s Response (ECF No. 51).

14

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 32), which is pending before the

15

district judge. The motion to re-open discovery was filed the day after the motion to amend was

16

filed and seeks a 90-day period to conduct discovery regarding a second charge of discrimination

17

for which he recently received a right to sue letter from the EEOC. Defendant opposes the motion

18

because the deadline for moving to extend discovery expired in January under the court’s

19

discovery plan and scheduling order and plaintiff has not shown either good cause or excusable

20

neglect for failing to request an extension before the expiration of the deadline. Additionally,

21

defendant points out that the description of discovery plaintiff’s new counsel proposes is directed

22

to plaintiff’s existing claims, as well as new claims he wishes to pursue if the motion to amend is

23

granted. New counsel took the case after all the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines

24

had expired and, pursuant to LR IA 11-6 took the case subject to those deadlines. Defendant also

25

opposes the motion to amend.

26

The district judge will decide whether to grant or deny plaintiff’s motion to amend. With

27

respect to plaintiff’s existing claims, discovery closed February 6, 2017, except for plaintiff’s

28

deposition. The court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery until April 25, 2017, for
1

1

the sole purpose of allowing defendant to take plaintiff’s deposition, which the parties had agreed

2

to reschedule multiple times due to mutual scheduling conflicts. The court also granted the parties’

3

request to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions and defendant timely filed a motion

4

for summary judgment (ECF No. 49) on June 14, 2017. Prior counsel was allowed to withdraw

5

and plaintiff received multiple extensions to retain counsel. Local Rule IA 11-6(d) is explicit:

6

“[d]ischarge, withdrawal or substitution of an attorney will not alone be reason for delay of pretrial

7

proceedings, discovery, the trial or any hearing in the case.” Plaintiff has not shown good cause

8

or excusable neglect for failing to comply with the court’s discovery plan and scheduling order

9

deadlines. Plaintiff essentially proposes starting over after defendant timely filed a motion for

10

summary judgment. The court will deny the motion without prejudice, and revisit the issue if, and

11

only if, the district judge grants the motion to amend the complaint.

12
13
14

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open Limited Discovery (ECF No. 34) is
DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 20th day of June, 2017.

15
16
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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