Neeman v. The Bank of New York, et al.,

Filing 41

ORDER Denying the parties' 40 Stipulation to Extend Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JEFFREY S. NEEMAN,

Case No. 2:16-cv-02674-APG-PAL

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
(Stip Ext Time – ECF No. 40)

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al.,
Defendants.

Before the court is the parties’ Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (ECF No. 40).
LR 26-4 states, in pertinent part, that:
A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling
order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1,
be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. A motion or stipulation
to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no
later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.
In addition, a request for extension requires:

18

(a) A statement specifying the discovery completed;

19

(b) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed;

20

(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

21
22

(d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery.

23

The parties’ stipulation states that they have submitted “limited discovery” which is not

24

described on dates which are not disclosed. The only other thing the parties have done is to file a

25

joint initial status report. The joint status report (ECF No 28) was filed January 10, 2017 and states

26

that the parties “are still finalizing the pleadings” and request a scheduling conference “once the

27

pleadings are closed.” The parties submitted a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order

28

January 25, 2017 which the court approved. It set a July 10, 2017 discovery cutoff. The parties
1

1

did not request a Rule 16 scheduling conference. They now want a 4-month extension of the

2

discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines because they are in settlement discussions and want

3

to focus their time and energy on settlement discussions. The parties have apparently engaged in

4

little or no discovery and have made no attempt to comply with LR 26-4. For these reasons,

5
6
7

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (ECF No.
40) is DENIED.
DATED this 29th day of June, 2017.

8
9
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2