Stegmaier v. City of Reno et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 32 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/22/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JAMES J. STEGMAIER,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00461-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
v.

ORDER

11
12

CITY OF RENO, ex rel., its RENO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a government entity, et
al.,

(Defs’ Motion to for Reconsideration
– dkt. no. 32)

13
Defendants.
14
15

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. no. 32.) In

16

Order entered on September 18, 2014, the Court dismissed several claims with leave to

17

amend. (Dkt. no. 31.) Defendants now request “clarification for the implications of the

18

Court’s Order.” (Dkt. no. 32 at 3.) Defendants essentially argue that they will be

19

prejudiced since Plaintiff will be permitted to re-open discovery and Plaintiff’s filing of an

20

amended complaint will affect the Scheduling Order. Defendants’ arguments are

21

unconvincing and do not warrant reconsideration.

the

22

The Court’s Order does not provide for automatic re-opening of discovery.

23

Assuming Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the party who believes additional

24

discovery is needed must seek leave of Court to re-open discovery. At this point it is not

25

clear that additional discovery is needed. The Court is not permitting new claims to be

26

filed, but merely allowing amendment of claims asserted in the original complaint.

27

Presumably the parties would have conducted discovery on the claims in the original

28

claim and no additional discovery will be needed.

1

As for the Scheduling Order, Defendants are correct that a new dispositive motion

2

deadline will need to be set after Plaintiff files an amended complaint, assuming he does

3

so. In that event, arguments raised in Defendants’ pending motion for summary

4

judgment relating to the amended claims may be rendered moot. However, these

5

scheduling issues do not serve as a basis for reconsideration of the merits of the Court’s

6

Order. The Court would expect counsel to confer and propose a new dispositive motion

7

deadline or request a status conference with the Magistrate Judge to address any other

8

scheduling issues.

9
10

It is ordered that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (dkt. no. 32) is denied.
DATED THIS 22nd day of September 2014.

11
12
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2