Mehudar v. Nydam II et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting Defendants' ECF No. 37 Second Motion to Continue Deadline. Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order due within 14 days of entry of order denying Defendants' ECF No. 11 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 1/5/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 12 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DAVID NYDAM II, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) HEATHER LEE MEHUDAR, Case No. 2:16-cv-02196-MMD-GWF ORDER 13 14 This matter is before the Court on Defendants Rachael Harris, David Nydam II, Doreen 15 Pine, and Tiffany Pugh’s Second Motion to Continue Deadline to File Discovery Plan and 16 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 37), filed on December 7, 2016. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an 17 opposition to this motion and the time for response has now expired. 18 On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed her complaint (ECF No. 1) alleging claims of 19 discrimination and harassment under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 20 On October 14, 2016, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) alleging that Plaintiff 21 failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants request that the Court continue 22 the date to file a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order pending a ruling on Defendants’ Motion to 23 Dismiss. 24 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 25 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). After conducting a preliminary peek of Defendants’ Motion to 26 Dismiss, the Court finds that a continuation of the deadline to file a discovery plan and scheduling 27 order is warranted. First, the pending motion to dismiss, if granted, may resolve all of the issues 28 raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Second, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss can be 1 decided without additional discovery. Finally, the Court is convinced that a continuation of the 2 deadline to file a discovery plan and scheduling order is warranted based upon the merits of 3 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. In addition, Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that “The failure of an opposing party to file points 4 5 and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” 6 Plaintiff did not file points and authorities in response to Defendants’ instant motion to continue the 7 deadline. Therefore, Plaintiff is considered to have consented to the granting of Defendants’ motion 8 under LR 7-2(d). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendants’ Second Motion to Continue Deadline to File 9 10 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 37) is granted. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the entry 12 of an order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss to file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling 13 order. 14 DATED this 5th day of January, 2017. 15 16 17 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?