Dumont v. Leo A. Daly Company
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 32 Second Motion to to Continue Discovery Period. Discovery due by 9/25/2017. Motions due by 10/25/2017. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/26/2017. No further extensions will be allowed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/30/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
FRANCIS X. DUMONT,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02864-APG-PAL
(Mot Cont Disc – ECF No. 32)
LEO A. DALY COMPANY,
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Discovery Period (ECF No. 32). The
court has reviewed the motion, defendant’s Response (ECF No. 34), and plaintiff’s Reply (ECF
Counsel for plaintiff requests a 30-day extension of the discovery cutoff to depose a
number of fact witnesses who reside in Texas or Nebraska, and defendant’s rebuttal expert, whose
report was due August 25, 2017. He argues the need for out-of-state travel and his busy schedule
in the next month leave insufficient time to schedule and complete the discovery needed.
Defendant opposes the motion arguing it declined to stipulate to a request for a 60-day
extension because plaintiff chose to wait until 30 days before close of discovery to conduct any
fact discovery, and did not request information regarding defendant’s employee witnesses,
available dates, or notice any depositions until August 25, 2017 despite stating on June 2nd he
would soon be noticing depositions and prosecuting this case. Defendant asserts plaintiff’s counsel
has failed to timely and diligently prosecuted this case. However, if the court is inclined to grant
a 30-day extension, defendant requests that no further extensions be allowed.
Plaintiff replies that he has not missed any deadlines and requested the extension with one
month remaining to complete discovery.
Having reviewed and considered the matter, the court is not satisfied plaintiff’s counsel has
been diligent in attempting to complete discovery within the time allowed. Defendant is correct
that in the Ninth Circuit, to prevail on a request for an extension, a party must show good cause
which focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F
2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Although lack of prejudice to opposing parties may justify an
additional reason to grant an extension, the focus is on the moving party’s diligence, and ordinarily
in the absence of diligence “the inquiry should end.” Id. at 609. The court will reluctantly grant
a 30-day extension of the discovery cutoff to depose witnesses in Texas and Nebraska and
defendant’s rebuttal expert. However, no further extensions will be allowed.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Discovery Period (ECF No. 32) is
GRANTED as follows:
The discovery cutoff is extended to September 25, 2017.
The deadline for filing pretrial motions is extended until October 25, 2017.
3. The deadline for filing the joint pretrial order is extended until December 26, 2017. In
the event dispositive motions are timely filed the deadline for filing the joint pretrial
order is suspended until 30 days after decision of dispositive motions.
4. No further extensions will be allowed.
DATED this 30th day of August, 2017.
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?