Hain v. Geico Casualty Company

Filing 19

ORDER Granting 16 Motion to Extend Time and the parties shall have until 9/28/18 to file a jointpretrial order. See Order for further deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

LANCE HAIN,

8
9
10
11
12
13

v.

Case No. 2:18-cv-0098-GMN-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER
(Mot Ext Time – ECF No. 16)

GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant.

Before the court is defendant Geico Casualty Company’s (“Geico”) Motion to Extend
Deadline to file Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 16).

14

The motion was not timely filed. Pursuant to the court’s Discovery Plan and Scheduling

15

Order (ECF No. 12) entered March 2, 2018, discovery closed July 18, 2018, dispositive motions

16

were due August 17, 2018, and the joint pretrial order was due September 14, 2018. On August

17

30, 2018, after the deadline for filing dispositive motions had expired, the district judge referred

18

this case to the undersigned for a settlement conference. See Minute Order in Chambers (ECF No.

19

14). The court entered its order setting a settlement conference for December 12, 2018 on

20

September 12, 2018. See Order (ECF No. 15). On September 14, 2018, plaintiff filed his proposed

21

pretrial order. Defendant filed this motion for an extension of time.

22

The motion is untimely because it was not filed 21 days before the expiration of the

23

deadline established by the court’s discovery plan and scheduling order for filing the joint pretrial

24

order. See LR 26-4. The motion is not supported by a showing of good cause for the extension.

25

Rather, the motion states that the lead attorney in this matter, Danielle C. Miller, has been out of

26

the office for two weeks and is expected to return on Monday, September 17, 2018. Because of

27

her unavailability a staff member requested a stipulation to extend the deadline for two weeks

28

from plaintiff’s counsel after receiving plaintiff’s proposed draft joint pretrial order.
1

See

1

Declaration of K. Freeman attached as Exhibit A to the motion. The declaration states that on

2

Monday, September 10, 2018, the law firm received an email from Ms. Fears, a staff member of

3

counsel for plaintiff’s office, transmitting a draft of the joint pretrial order who requested that

4

defense counsel review and approve it. The same day, Ms. Freeman emailed Ms. Fears and

5

inquired when the joint pretrial order was due. She was informed that it was due on Friday,

6

September 14, 2018. A request was made to extend the deadline by two weeks. Ms. Fears

7

responded that counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Berg, wanted to get the joint pretrial order on file by the

8

deadline, and that if none of the attorneys in the firm were comfortable with signing the joint

9

pretrial order in Ms. Miller’s absence, plaintiff would file plaintiff’s proposed pretrial order.

10

Neither the motion, nor the supporting declaration, indicate why Ms. Miller was out of the

11

office. There is no suggestion that there was an emergency or that she was unavailable 21 days

12

before expiration of the deadline to request an extension. Rather, it appears that the law firm either

13

did not calendar the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order or did not pay attention to the

14

calendar. Neither the law firm nor the assigned attorney made the necessary arrangements to seek

15

an extension prior to Ms. Miller’s leave from the office.

16

Plaintiff understandably was not willing to stipulate to an extension after the deadline for

17

requesting an extension had run and timely filed a proposed pretrial order by the deadline

18

stablished by the court’s discovery plan and scheduling order. However, plaintiff’s proposed

19

pretrial order was not reviewed by counsel for Geico and defendant’s portion of the joint pretrial

20

order was apparently prepared by counsel for the plaintiff. The court will therefore require the

21

parties to submit a joint pretrial order as required by LR 26- 1, but sanction counsel for Geico for

22

failure to comply with the court’s discovery plan and scheduling order and LR 26-4. Counsel for

23

Geico’s failure to timely request a stipulation from opposing counsel, or in the alternative, seek

24

relief from the court will cause plaintiff’s counsel to incur unnecessary time and resources in

25

preparing a joint pretrial order. Accordingly, although the court will grant Geico’s request for a

26

two-week extension to file a joint pretrial order, the court will sanction Geico in the amount of

27

unnecessary attorney’s fees and costs incurred by counsel for plaintiff in preparing the joint pretrial

28

order.
2

1

IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendant Geico’s Motion to Extend Deadline to file Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 16)

3

is GRANTED and the parties shall have until September 28, 2018 to file a joint

4

pretrial order.

5

2. Geico is sanctioned for failure to comply with the court’s discovery plan and scheduling

6

order deadline and failure to comply with LR 26-4. The court will assess Geico for

7

reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by counsel for plaintiff to prepare and refile a joint

8

proposed pretrial order.

9

3. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer after the joint pretrial order is prepared

10

and filed to attempt to resolve the issue of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to be

11

paid to counsel for plaintiff.

12

4. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter without the court’s intervention counsel

13

for plaintiff shall have until October 14, 2018 to file a memorandum of points and

14

authorities supporting the request for attorney’s fees in accordance with the

15

requirements of LR 54-14.

16
17
18

5. Counsel for defendant shall have until October 21, 2018 to file a response to the motion
for attorney’s fees.
DATED this 20th day of September, 2018.

19
20
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3