Companion Property and Casualty Group v. Consolidated Agent Partners et al
Filing
122
ORDER denying 103 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order and denying as moot 121 Motion for Leave to File Supplement. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 8/27/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
GROUP,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CONSOLIDATED AGENCY PARTNERS, dba )
MENICUCCI INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, )
KAREN FAUST, HIGHPOINT RISK
)
SERVICES LLC, PINNACLE
)
UNDERWRITERS, INC., RISK
)
PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC. dba RISK )
PLACEMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE
)
BROKERS, JOAN VASCONES, SKY HIGH )
SPORTS, LLC, SKY HIGH SPORTS
)
ORANGE COUNTY OPERATIONS, LLC,
)
ROLLAND WEDDELL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )
3:12-cv-00595-HDM-VPC
ORDER
Before the court is the motion of defendants Karen Faust and
18
Consolidated Agency Partners (collectively “CAP”) seeking
19
reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order extending discovery
20
(#103).
21
replied (#119).
22
its opposition (#121).
Plaintiff has opposed the motion (#113), and CAP has
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to supplement
23
On June 16, 2013, the plaintiff moved for an extension of
24
certain discovery deadlines in this case, including the expert
25
disclosure deadline.
26
15, 2013, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s motion.
27
expert disclosure deadline was extended from June 18, 2013, to
28
August 19, 2013.
CAP opposed the motion.
1
At a hearing on July
The
1
While CAP’s motion objects to the magistrate judge’s order in
2
its entirety, the only basis of alleged error is the extension of
3
the expert disclosure deadline.
4
objects to the extension of any other deadline, the motion is
5
DENIED.
6
because plaintiff’s motion was not filed 21 days before the expert
7
witness deadline as required by Local Rule 26-4, the magistrate
8
judge was required to find “excusable neglect” before granting the
9
motion.
10
11
Therefore, to the extent CAP
As to the expert disclosure deadline, CAP argues that
CAP argues that excusable neglect did not exist, and that
it was prejudiced by the extension of the deadline.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the magistrate judge may
12
hear and determine many pretrial matters, including discovery
13
motions.
14
rulings that are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
15
court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion, CAP’s response and
16
plaintiff’s reply, and concludes that the magistrate judge’s ruling
17
was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
18
demonstrated excusable neglect for the untimely request, and the
19
magistrate judge did not err in granting the motion.
20
The district judge may reconsider magistrate judge
The
The record
Accordingly, the motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s
21
ruling (#103) is DENIED.
22
opposition (#121) is also DENIED as moot.
The plaintiff’s motion to supplement its
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
DATED: This 27th day of August, 2013.
25
26
Id.
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?