Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. et al v. SL-FL NNN Industrial Portfolio I Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 24 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. In light of the circumstances and as a one-time courtesy to the parties, the Court will extend the deadlines in the scheduling order by 30 days as follows: Discovery due by 5/3/2018. Motions due by 6/2/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/5/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15

VESTIN REALTY MORTGAGE I, INC., et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
SL-FL NNN INDUSTRIAL PORTFOLIO I
)
HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02530-APG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 24)

16

Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order by four

17

months. Docket No. 24. The gist of the parties’ position is that they have foregone their discovery

18

obligations for the last two months while attempting to negotiate a settlement. See id. at 4. While the Court

19

encourages settlement discussions, a decision to defer discovery while the parties attempt to settle a case

20

is not “good cause” for a later request for an extension. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pac.

21

Co., 2013 WL 1164941, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) (“as a legal matter, settlement discussions do not,

22

in of themselves, arise to good cause for modifying the scheduling order”); Rybski v. Home Depot USA,

23

Inc., 2012 WL 5416586, *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2012) (“settlement conferences or discussions do not

24

constitute good cause to modify a scheduling order”).1 Moreover, the length of the extension now sought

25

(four months) is an unreasonable amount of time to extend deadlines to conduct settlement discussions.

26
27
1

28

Parties are similarly not empowered to stipulate to staying their discovery obligations without
obtaining Court approval when their agreement impacts the deadlines set by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29.

1

In light of the circumstances and as a one-time courtesy to the parties, the Court will extend the

2

deadlines in the scheduling order by 30 days. The stipulation is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED

3

in part as follows:

4

•

Amend pleadings/ add parties: February 2, 2018

5

•

Expert disclosures: March 5, 2018

6

•

Interim status report: March 5, 2018

7

•

Rebuttal expert disclosures: April 3, 2018

8

•

Discovery cutoff: May 3, 2018

9

•

Dispositive motions: June 2, 2018

10

•

Joint proposed pretrial order: July 2, 2018, or 30 days after decision on dispositive motions

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: January 5, 2018

13
14

________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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