Holden v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 96

ORDER that Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time for Settlement Conference (ECF No. 95 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/24/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
JIM BASS HOLDEN,
9
10
11
12
13

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA EX REL NEVADA )
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)

3:16-cv-00064-MMD-WGC
ORDER
Re: ECF No. 95

14
15

Before the court is Defendants' motion (ECF No. 95) to stay the setting of the settlement

16

conference which has been ordered by District Judge Miranda M. Du (ECF No. 94). The rationale for

17

deferring the settlement conference is that Defendants intend on submitting a motion for reconsideration

18

of Judge Du's Order (ECF No. 93) accepting in part and rejecting in part the Report and

19

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 87).1 The Defendants suggest that the "Courts

20

decision on the motion for reconsideration (and therefore the motion for summary judgment) will

21

significantly impact the parties' respective positions during the settlement negotiations." (ECF No. 95

22

at 3; emphasis in the original).

23

The Local Rules state that "motions for reconsideration are disfavored." LR 59-1(b). Motions

24

for reconsideration are “extraordinary remed[ies],” and they should only be used “sparingly in the

25

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

26

F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Although it is possible a motion for reconsideration might be granted,

27
28

1

The docket reflects Judge Du’s order was entered on September 24, 2018. As of this date, no motion
for reconsideration has been filed.

1

the resolution of such a motion may be several months away.

2

While there may be some uncertainty in the status of the case, this is true in almost every case

3

that proceeds to a settlement conference. The court frequently refers matters to settlement conference,

4

even at early stages of the case. See, e.g., LR 16-6 regarding Early Neutral Evaluations, which are

5

scheduled at the outset of an employment-type of case. See also LPR 1-19, mandatory settlement

6

conferences in patent cases and the rules scheduling the Early Mediation Conferences in inmate civil

7

rights cases under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

8

pessimistic about the prospects of the parties reaching a settlement only to be able to reach an accord

9

after having discussed the matter with their principals in attendance. The court is of the opinion the

10
11
12
13
14

The court frequently encounters matters where counsel are

settlement conference should proceed in this matter.
Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time for Settlement Conference (ECF No. 95) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 24th day of October 2018.

15

____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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