The Bank of New York Mellon v. Pomeroy et al

Filing 43

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 42 Motion to Stay Discovery pending resolution of its 41 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/31/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
NIKKI M. POMEROY, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00939-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 42)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion

17

for partial summary judgment, Docket No. 42, which is DENIED. Most significantly, the motion to stay

18

discovery was filed after business hours on the discovery cutoff, and it is not in furtherance the goals of

19

Rule 1 to stay discovery at this point when little (if any) discovery remains. In addition, Plaintiff fails

20

to explain in meaningful fashion how this motion to stay discovery differs from the others previously

21

denied. Bank of America, N.A. v. Treo N. & S. Homeowners’ Ass’n, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 139662 (D.

22

Nev. Aug. 30, 2017); Bank of America, N.A. v. Imagination N. Landscape Maint. Ass’n, 2017 U.S. Dist.

23

Lexis 129398 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2017); JPMorgan Chase Bank v. RHKids, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis

24

123044 (D. Nev. Aug. 4, 2017); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Vegas Prop. Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66682

25

(D. Nev. May 2, 2017). Lastly, Plaintiff fails to provide meaningful explanation for its contention that

26

its motion for summary judgment may dispose “of the entire case,” Docket No. 42 at 3, when the

27

summary judgment motion is on its face a partial motion for summary judgment, Docket No. 41. The

28

motion to stay discovery is DENIED.

1

In violation of Local Rule IC 2-2(b), Plaintiff filed in the same document a motion to extend

2

discovery. Docket No. 42 at 5. It appears the discovery at issue would be follow-up to documents

3

obtained and depositions taken in the twilight of the discovery period, id. at 6, and Plaintiff has failed

4

to show adequately that it diligently used the entire discovery period already provided, see, e.g., My

5

Home Now, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 2016 WL 643960, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 28, 2016).

6

Lastly, to the extent the additional discovery stems from other parties’ discovery shortcomings, Plaintiff

7

has failed to explain why that is not remedied through a motion to compel rather than generally

8

reopening discovery. Cf. Gault v. Nabisco Co., 184 F.R.D. 620, 622 (D. Nev. 1999) (the outer deadline

9

for filing a discovery motion is generally the deadline for dispositive motions). The motion to extend

10
11
12

discovery is DENIED without prejudice.
Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is DENIED with prejudice and the motion to extend
discovery is DENIED without prejudice.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: October 31, 2017

15
16

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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