Weinfeld et al v. Minor et al

Filing 115

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 3/1/2017. Before the court is the parties' Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Fourth Request) 114 . The parties outline the procedural history of the case including the multiple extensions of the discovery deadline this court has approved in the past. The last extension was approved in ECF No. 112, wherein the court indicated that "There shall be no further extensions granted." (Id ., at 3). The parties' stipulation fails to note this admonition. The court is not inclined to grant a discovery extension because of the parties' issues in completing discovery; their discovery should have been undertaken and c ompleted within the time parameters the court authorized on December 19, 2016 112 . Nevertheless, the medical issues confronting Defendants' counsel (ECF No. 114 at 2) provides good cause for what the court will grant as a final extension. Th e court has to manage its docket and further delays in completing discovery will be unacceptable. The following deadlines are imposed in this matter: Discovery Cut-off Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2017; Disclosure of Expert Testimony: F riday, March 31, 2017; Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts: Monday, May 1, 2017; Dispositive Motions: Friday, June 30, 2017; Proposed Joint Pre-trial Order: Monday, July 31, 2017. In the event that dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 days after the decision on the dispositive motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOSEPH WEINFELD, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) BILL L. MINOR, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________) 3:14-cv-00513-RCJ-WGC MINUTES OF THE COURT March 1, 2017 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: Before the court is the parties' Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Fourth Request) (ECF No. 114). The parties outline the procedural history of the case including the multiple extensions of the discovery deadline this court has approved in the past. The last extension was approved in ECF No. 112, wherein the court indicated that "There shall be no further extensions granted." (Id., at 3). The parties' stipulation fails to note this admonition. The court is not inclined to grant a discovery extension because of the parties' issues in completing discovery; their discovery should have been undertaken and completed within the time parameters the court authorized on December 19, 2016 (ECF No. 112). Nevertheless, the medical issues confronting Defendants' counsel (ECF No. 114 at 2) provides good cause for what the court will grant as a final extension. Counsel should recognize this case was commenced in the Eastern District of New York in 2012 (ECF No.1) and transferred to the District of Nevada in September of 2014 (ECF No. 24). The court has to manage its docket and further delays in completing discovery will be unacceptable. /// MINUTES OF THE COURT 3:14-cv-00513-RCJ-WGC March 1, 2017 Page Two The following deadlines are imposed in this matter: Discovery Cut-off Date: Disclosure of Expert Testimony: Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts: Dispositive Motions: Proposed Joint Pre-trial Order: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 Friday, March 31, 2017 Monday, May 1, 2017 Friday, June 30, 2017 Monday, July 31, 2017. In the event that dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 days after the decision on the dispositive motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK By: /s/ Deputy Clerk

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?