Barnes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 225

ORDER - The motion to lift the stay (ECF No. 220 ) is GRANTED. The motion to amend the scheduling order deadlines (ECF No. 221 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court will schedule a hearing to determine a reasonable extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney on 5/19/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 225 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

PATRICIA G. BARNES,

4

Plaintiff

5

v.

6

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD
Order
Re: ECF Nos. 220, 221

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,
7 Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration, et al.,
8
Defendants
9
10

Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi has filed a motion to lift the stay and to amend the discovery

11 plan and scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 220, 221.) 1 Plaintiff filed a response. (ECF No. 223.)
12

Defendants Kilolo Kijakazi and Jimmy Elkins filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s fourth

13 amended complaint (ECF No. 186), and a motion to stay the case until the motion to dismiss was
14 decided (ECF No. 187). Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to stay, and Chief Judge Du granted
15 the motion staying the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 208.)
16 Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that order (ECF No. 213), which Chief Judge Du
17 denied (ECF No. 215).
18

On May 2, 2022, Chief Judge Du issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the First

19 Amendment retaliation claim from the fourth amended complaint, but allowed the ADEA
20 disparate-impact age discrimination claim to proceed. (ECF No. 219.) This motion to lift the stay
21 and amend the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines followed. (ECF Nos. 220/221.)
22
23
1

These documents are identical, but were filed separately by the Clerk’s Office.

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 225 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 2

1

Preliminarily, the motion to dismiss has been determined; therefore, it is appropriate to

2 lift the stay.
3

Defendant seeks to extend the scheduling order deadlines by approximately six months,

4 making the discovery completion deadline November 1, 2022; the dispositive motions deadline
5 December 1, 2022; and the deadline for the joint pretrial order (if dispositive motions are not
6 filed) January 3, 2023. Plaintiff opposes the request, stating that this will unduly delay this matter
7 which will prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff requests that the court approve a new scheduling order
8 that begins on the date the court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, and extend the
9 discovery completion deadline out 30 days from that date.
10

Defendant’s motion does not provide a basis for an extension of six months when this

11 case has been pending since 2018; however, the court declines to enter the scheduling order
12 requested by Plaintiff. Instead, the court will schedule a hearing to determine a reasonable
13 extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines.
14

CONCLUSION

15

The motion to lift the stay (ECF No. 220) is GRANTED. The motion to amend the

16 scheduling order deadlines (ECF No. 221) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court
17 will schedule a hearing to determine a reasonable extension of the discovery plan and scheduling
18 order deadlines.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 Dated: May 19, 2022
21

_________________________________
Craig S. Denney
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23

2