Rice v. Clark County School District
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
(Mot Re-Open Disc – ECF No. 34)
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).
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 32), which is pending before the
district judge. The motion to re-open discovery was filed the day after the motion to amend was
filed and seeks a 90-day period to conduct discovery regarding a second charge of discrimination
for which he recently received a right to sue letter from the EEOC. Defendant opposes the motion
because the deadline for moving to extend discovery expired in January under the court’s
discovery plan and scheduling order and plaintiff has not shown either good cause or excusable
neglect for failing to request an extension before the expiration of the deadline. Additionally,
defendant points out that the description of discovery plaintiff’s new counsel proposes is directed
to plaintiff’s existing claims, as well as new claims he wishes to pursue if the motion to amend is
granted. New counsel took the case after all the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines
had expired and, pursuant to LR IA 11-6 took the case subject to those deadlines. Defendant also
opposes the motion to amend.
The district judge will decide whether to grant or deny plaintiff’s motion to amend. With
respect to plaintiff’s existing claims, discovery closed February 6, 2017, except for plaintiff’s
deposition. The court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery until April 25, 2017, for
the sole purpose of allowing defendant to take plaintiff’s deposition, which the parties had agreed
to reschedule multiple times due to mutual scheduling conflicts. The court also granted the parties’
request to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions and defendant timely filed a motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 49) on June 14, 2017. Prior counsel was allowed to withdraw
and plaintiff received multiple extensions to retain counsel. Local Rule IA 11-6(d) is explicit:
“[d]ischarge, withdrawal or substitution of an attorney will not alone be reason for delay of pretrial
proceedings, discovery, the trial or any hearing in the case.” Plaintiff has not shown good cause
or excusable neglect for failing to comply with the court’s discovery plan and scheduling order
deadlines. Plaintiff essentially proposes starting over after defendant timely filed a motion for
summary judgment. The court will deny the motion without prejudice, and revisit the issue if, and
only if, the district judge grants the motion to amend the complaint.
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.
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?