Falls et al v. Desert Palace, Inc

Filing 97

ORDER denying 87 Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER granting 95 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 88 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 12/26/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CYNTHIA FALLS, et al.

8
9
10

Case No. 2:17-cv-00019-GMN-PAL
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
(Mot Reconsider – ECF No. 87)
(Mot Seal – ECF No. 88)
(Motion to Amend – ECF No. 95)

DESERT PALACE, INC.,
Defendant.

11
12

Before the court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Emergency

13

Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 87), and plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File

14

Under Seal Declaration of Kathleen J. England in Support (ECF No. 88). The court has considered

15

the motions, defendants’ Opposition (ECF No. 93), plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 94), Plaintiff’s

16

Clarifying Correction (ECF No. 95) which was docketed as a Motion to Amend/Correct Reply,

17

and defendant’s Response (ECF No. 96).

18

The motion to reconsider requests reconsideration of the court’s Order (ECF No. 86)

19

denying plaintiffs’ request to extend the discovery cutoff a fourth time for 90 days. The emergency

20

motion was filed after the third extension of the discovery cutoff. The motion to reconsider is

21

supported by the declaration of Ms. England who provides more details of the nature and timing

22

of lead counsel’s family medical issues on which the emergency motion was initially based and an

23

update on those circumstances.

24

While the court empathizes with the personal toll family medical issues take, the court

25

denies the motion for reconsideration. The motion does not meet the standard for reconsideration.

26

For the reasons stated in the Order (ECF No. 86) denying the emergency motion, plaintiffs have

27

had more than adequate time to complete discovery within the extended time allowed. Plaintiffs’

28

counsel intentionally delayed scheduling depositions in this case for various reasons unrelated to
1

1

family medical issues, declined to delegate responsibility to take depositions to other attorneys

2

actively involved in the case, and now seeks to take an additional 20 depositions after the close of

3

discovery without seeking a stipulation or leave of court to take more than 10 depositions allowed

4

by Rule 30.

5

For these reasons,

6

IT IS ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Emergency Motion to Extend

8
9
10

Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 87) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Declaration of Kathleen J. England in
Support (ECF No. 88) is GRANTED.

11

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct (ECF No 95) is GRANTED.

12

DATED this 26th day of December 2018.

13
14
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2