Johnson v. Garofalo et al

Filing 191

ORDER denying 189 Motion to Conduct Limited Discover. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 5/21/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:16-cv-01889-GMN-DJA Document 191 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5
6

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 2:16-cv-01889-GMN-DJA
ORDER

v.
GAROFALO, ET AL.,
Defendants.

11
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery
12
(ECF No. 189), filed on April 27, 2020. Defendants filed a Response (ECF No. 190) on May 11,
13
2020. Any reply was due by May 18, 2020 and none has been filed to date. The Court finds this
14
matter properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.
15
Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner who seeks to conduct limited discovery on Defendant Brian
16
Williams. He requests a period of 45 days to serve interrogatories and requests for production of
17
documents in order to prepare for trial. (ECF No. 189). Defendants oppose the request arguing
18
that not only has discovery closed, but also their Motion for Summary Judgment has been ruled
19
on with all defendants and claims except for one being dismissed. (ECF No. 190). Further, the
20
parties have submitted a joint pretrial order, which the Court entered on April 17, 2020. (ECF
21
No. 188). The trial date of October 19, 2020 has been selected. (Id.)
22
Discovery in this matter closed almost a year ago, on June 5, 2019. ECF No. 102.
23
Plaintiff fails to cite the excusable neglect standard nor does he provide any grounds for the Court
24
to find that reopening discovery is warranted. “A request made after the expiration of the subject
25
deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the
26
result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-3. In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the
27
following equitable factors: (1) the reason for the delay, (2) whether the moving party acted in
28

Case 2:16-cv-01889-GMN-DJA Document 191 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 2

1

good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the

2

danger of prejudice to the non-moving party. Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-

3

24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395

4

(1993)). It is within the court’s discretion to determine whether excusable neglect exists. Pincay

5

v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 2004).

6

This case has already gone through discovery, dispositive motions, joint pretrial order, and

7

is awaiting trial. Further, Plaintiff does not specify what discovery he is seeking from Williams.

8

Finally, the Court does not find that Plaintiff was diligent in seeking discovery from Williams

9

prior to the close of discovery.

10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery
(ECF No. 189) is denied.

12
13

DATED: May 21, 2020.

14
15

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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