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)

Download PDF
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

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?