United States of America v Steven C. Nagy, et al

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 10 Motion to Continue; finding as moot 20 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as it is more properly deemed a reply to the motion to continue. FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 6/8/2011, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 6/22/2011, Joint Status Report due by 6/28/2011. (TG; cc mailed to defendants)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C11-5066BHS

STEVEN C. NAGY, et al.,

Defendants.

13

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ (the “Nagys”) motions for

15
16

continuance (Dkt. 10) and extension (Dkt. 20) of the Court’s initial scheduling order (Dkt.

17

4). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the

18

motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motions for the reasons stated

19

herein.

20

On April 15, 2011, the Nagys moved the Court to continue the initial scheduling

21

order. Dkt. 10. On April 20, 2011, Plaintiff (the “United States”) responded in opposition

22

to the motion. Dkt. 11. On May 6, 2011, the Nagys replied.1

23

The Nagys’ motion to continue (Dkt. 10) is more properly characterized as a

24

motion for extension of time to comply with the initial scheduling order (Dkt. 4), and the

25
26
27
28

1

The Nagys’ response is styled as a “motion for extension of time”; however, the motion
is simply attempting to accomplish the same result as their prior motion to continue. Compare
Dkt. 10 with 20. The Court terminates the motion for extension (Dkt. 20) and treats it as a reply
to the motion to continue (Dkt. 10).
ORDER - 1

1

Court treats it as such. The Nagys contend that the United States does not oppose their

2

motion for extension. However, the Nagys mischaracterize the United States’ response.

3

Although the United States does not oppose having a longer than typical discovery

4

period,2 the United States does oppose extending the initial scheduling order deadlines.

5

Dkt. 11 at 2.

6

Because the Nagys are proceeding pro se, the Court will generally grant some

7

latitude. Here, the Nagys request the Court to extend the dates in its initial scheduling

8

order for about three months. Such an extension is excessive, given the administrative

9

nature of the Court’s initial scheduling order. See Dkt. 4 (setting initial deadlines).

10
11

However, a one-month extension is appropriate at this time.
Therefore, the Nagys’ motion for extension (Dkt. 10) is hereby GRANTED. The

12

initial scheduling order deadlines shall be extended by one month as follows:
13

1.

FRCP 26f Conference deadline is June 8, 2011;

2.

Initial Disclosure deadline is June 22, 2011; and

3.

Joint Status Report due by June 28, 2011.

14
15
16
17

DATED this 10th day of May, 2011.

18
19

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The parties are encouraged to determine and submit to the Court an appropriate
proposed discovery schedule within their joint status report, to be filed in accord with the order
herein.
ORDER - 2