U.S. Bank N.A. v. Thunder Properties, Inc.
ORDER denying 36 stipulated motion to extend discovery plan and scheduling order. Dispositive motions are due on March 9, 2018 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 2/7/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
US BANK N.A., et al.,
THUNDER PROPERTIES, INC., )
MINUTES OF THE COURT
February 7, 2018
THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
The third stipulated motion to extend discovery plan and scheduling order (ECF No. 36)
is DENIED. This case originated in December 2016 (ECF No. 1). The court entered its
original scheduling order in May 2017. At that time, the parties were granted an initial extension
of time of twenty-two days (ECF No. 21).
Thereafter, the court has granted two additional extension of time (ECF Nos. 28 & 33)
for a total discovery period of 322 days which has now expired. On each order granting an
extension, the court cautioned the parties by hand-writing the following: “There will be no
further extensions of this order. VPC.” The parties are now requesting a third1 extension of time
for a total of 380 days of discovery (ECF No. 36).2 In each request for an extension, the parties
cite to minimal written discovery that has been accomplished and their desire to discuss
settlement. In the third request for discovery extension filed on the very deadline of February 6,
2018,3 the parties state they have belatedly resolved a discovery dispute of which the court was
In actuality, this is the fourth request for an extension (ECF Nos. 21, 28, 33 & 36).
Discovery periods longer than 180 days from the date the first defendant answers or appear will require special
scheduling review. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1).
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-4, a motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be
received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.
unaware. While the court commends the parties for resolving their own dispute, perhaps if the
parties had brought such dispute to the court, it could have been resolved in a more timely
Based upon the parties’ lack of attention to actually completing discovery and their
failure to heed this court’s plain warnings that discovery would not be extended, the court is in
the unenviable position of having to deny the request to extend discovery. Discovery in this
matter is concluded. Dispositive motions are due on March 9, 2018. No extensions will be
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, 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?