West Coast Mobile Home Parks, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 20 Stipulation re Discovery Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/15/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

WEST COAST MOBILE HOME PARKS, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., )
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02183-RFB-CWH
ORDER

12
13
14

Presently before the court is the parties’ Stipulation to Continue the Expert Witness
Disclosure and Expert Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 20), filed on May 11, 2017.

15

This is an insurance coverage dispute in which the parties request that the expert witness

16

disclosure and discovery deadlines be continued by sixty days to complete fact discovery and to

17

wait for resolution of a related state court case. The parties represent that a motion for summary

18

judgment has been pending in the state court case for over a year. The parties argue that the

19

extension is necessary to “promote judicial economy and costs savings . . . because it will allow

20

their expert witnesses to wait until the conclusion of the anticipated significant fact discovery in

21

this action, and for additional progress” in the state court case before having to prepare their expert

22

reports. (Stip. (ECF No. 20) at 2.)

23
24
25
26
27
28

Under Local Rule 26-4, a stipulation to extend deadlines in a discovery plan must be
supported by a showing of good cause and must include:
(a) A statement specifying the discovery completed;
(b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed;
(c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was
not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and
(d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery.

1

Based on the information provided in the stipulation, the court is unable to evaluate whether

2

there is good cause for the requested extension. The parties only provide a general overview of the

3

discovery that has been completed so far. Besides stating that experts must prepare their reports,

4

the parties do not specify the discovery that remains to be completed, despite their representation

5

that significant fact discovery is anticipated. Additionally, the parties do not provide the court with

6

any details regarding the parties or claims at issue in the motion for summary judgment that is

7

pending in state court, how it bears on this case, or the reasons the parties anticipate this motion

8

will be decided in the next sixty days. The court therefore will deny the parties’ stipulation without

9

prejudice.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: May 15, 2017

12
13
14

______________________________________

15

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2