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)

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