De Clercq v. Encompass Indemnity Company

Filing 35

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 26 plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 27 plaintiff's motion to extend is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 30 defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

CARINA DE CLERQ,

7

Plaintiff,
ORDER

8
9

Case No. 2:17-cv-02665-JAD-CWH

v.
ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY,

10

Defendant.

11
12

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and motion to extend

13

(ECF Nos. 26, 27), filed on December 7, 2018. Defendant Encompass Indemnity Company filed

14

a response (ECF No. 28) on December 21, 2018. Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 29) on

15

December 28, 2018.
Also before the court is defendant’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply (ECF No. 30),

16
17

filed on January 8, 2019.

18

I.

MOTION TO COMPEL

19

Plaintiff now moves to compel the production of documents and for a finding that

20

defendant is prohibited from using a protective order. (Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 26).) Plaintiff

21

also moves to extend the expert disclosure discovery deadline. (Mot. for Extension (ECF No.

22

27).) In response, defendant concedes that a stipulated protective order is no longer necessary

23

and states that counsel inadvertently failed to produce the requested manuals. (Resp. (ECF No.

24

28).) Defendant also responds that it submitted supplements to plaintiff’s requests, and that

25

defendant does not oppose extending discovery deadlines. (Id.) Plaintiff replies that defendant

26

did indeed produce additional documents after the filing of this motion, and that plaintiff has not

27

had an opportunity to review the files to determine if the production complies with her requests.

28

(Reply (ECF No. 29).)

Having reviewed the briefs, the court is unable to determine which documents in the

1
2

motion to compel are still disputed. Plaintiff states that defendant has produced the additional

3

documents, but plaintiff has not indicated which discovery requests remain at issue following

4

defendant’s production. Further, defendant concedes that a protective order is unnecessary. The

5

court will therefore deny plaintiff’s motion to compel without prejudice.

6

II.

MOTION TO EXTEND
Plaintiff also moves to extend discovery deadlines. (Mot. for Extension (ECF No. 27).)

7
8

However, on February 12, 2019, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to modify the discovery

9

plan and scheduling order with dates nearly identical to those proposed in this motion. The court

10

will therefore deny the motion to extend as moot.

11

III.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 26)

is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to extend (ECF No. 27) is DENIED
as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply (ECF
No. 30) is DENIED.
DATED: February 26, 2019

19
20

C.W. HOFFMAN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2