Abdul-Alim et al v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 49

ORDER Granting 43 Motion for the Appearance of the State of Nevada Department of Education Counsel and Denying without prejudice as moot 45 Motion to Extend/Shorten Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/25/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

AMIR ABDUL-ALIM, et al.,

Case No. 2:23-cv-01677-MMD-NJK

Plaintiff(s),

Order

v.

[Docket Nos. 43, 45]

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et
al.,
Defendant(s).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Appearance of the State of Nevada

14 Department of Education Counsel. Docket No. 43. The Court liberally construes the filings of
15 pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). It is not entirely clear what relief
16 Plaintiffs are seeking through this filing, but it appears that Plaintiffs are asking for the defense’s
17 participation in discovery meet-and-confers. See Docket No. 43 at 6-7. Defendants filed a notice
18 of non-opposition. Docket No. 43. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defense counsel
19 make themselves available for conferral efforts regarding discovery. To that extent, Plaintiffs’
20 motion (Docket No. 43) is GRANTED.1
21

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to extend case management deadlines,

22 which appears to be predicated on their desire to obtain the above ruling. See Docket No. 45 at
23
24
25
26
27

1
If Plaintiffs seek other relief through the filing of this motion, such other relief is
28 DENIED without prejudice to filing a separate request clearly articulating the relief sought.

1

1 11-12. Since the Court is resolving the underlying motion herein, the accompanying request to
2 extend case management deadlines (Docket No. 45) is DENIED without prejudice as moot.2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: March 25, 2024
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2
Although not entirely clear, it appears that the latter motion may also be seeking other
25 relief related to Defendants’ discovery responses. See, e.g., Docket No. 45 at 11-12. Discovery
disputes must be subject to a robust conferral process before seeking relief from the Court. E.g.,
26 Local Rule 26-6(c). Moreover, discovery motion practice is subject to a variety of procedural
requirements, including providing the subject discovery requests and responses in the motion.
27 Local Rule 26-6(b). If Plaintiffs seek other relief through the filing of this motion besides an
extension of case management deadlines, such other relief is DENIED without prejudice to filing
28 a separate request clearly articulating the relief sought and complying with the governing rules.

2