Walker v. Miller et al

Filing 46

ORDER re ECF No. 43 Motion : Reconsideration is denied. However, Defendants will respond to Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 43 ) as if it were a motion to compel within the time period which commenced upon the electronic filing and service of ECF No. 43 . The discovery deadline is vacated until after the court can address Plaintiff's motion to amend and Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (which the court is treating as a motion to compel). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 3/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
JOHN WALKER,
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SGT. MILLER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

3:15-cv-00608-MMD-WGC
ORDER

13
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
14
(ECF No. 43) Numerous exhibits accompanied Plaintiff’s motion.
15
Plaintiff’s motion pertains to this court’s order (ECF No. 39) denying Plaintiff’s underlying
16
Motion for Extension of Time to File Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, 14, 19 and 20 with Extension
17
of Time for Discovery Related Issues (ECF No. 36). Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s motion, contending
18
Defendants had responded to Plaintiff’s discovery and were current on their discovery obligations.
19
(ECF No. 38.)
20
The court denied Plaintiff’s motion because the time for completion of discovery was more than
21
thirty (30) days after the filing of Plaintiff’s motion. The motion was not denied on the basis of whether
22
Defendants were or were not current on their discovery obligations.
23
The court will not reconsider its Order (ECF No. 39). The information Plaintiff subsequently
24
provided in his reply memorandum (ECF No. 41, filed after the court had denied Plaintiff’s motion) does
25
not cause the court to suspect the validity and rationale for denying Plaintiff’s motion for extension. To
26
that extent, therefore, reconsideration is denied.
27
///
28

1

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration has more of the attributes of a motion to compel discovery

2

responses. The real issue which appears to be raised in Plaintiff’s motion is whether Defendants have

3

appropriately responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and whether NDOC/NNCC has sufficiently

4

allowed Plaintiff access to certain materials, such as an incident video, medical records, etc. Although

5

the court has concern whether Plaintiff has adequately satisfied the “meet and confer” obligations of LR

6

26-7, the court will treat Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as a motion to compel. Defendants will

7

respond to Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 43) as if it were a motion to compel within the time period which

8

commenced upon the electronic filing and service of ECF No. 43.

9

The court is also aware, however, Plaintiff is seeking to amend his complaint to add two

10

Defendants (Associate Warden Sheckengust and Warden Isidro Baca) and also delete or dismiss two

11

current parties Defendant (Skulstad and Scott). (ECF No. 40.) The court has advised Plaintiff his motion

12

needed to be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, and Plaintiff has been afforded leave to

13

file a proposed amended complaint within seven (7) days. (ECF No. 45.) The possible addition of two

14

additional Defendants places the court’s current scheduling order deadline for completion of discovery

15

in jeopardy (ECF No. 32 at 2). Therefore, the discovery deadline is vacated until after the court can

16

address Plaintiff’s motion to amend and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (which the court is

17

treating as a motion to compel).

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: March 8, 2017.

20
21

_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2