ORDER

[Docket Nos. 61, 66]

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery to conduct certain depositions. Docket No. 61. Defendants filed a response in partial opposition and a counter-motion to extend. Docket No. 64.1 Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 65. Plaintiff also filed a motion to strike, Docket No. 66, for which the Court does not require a response. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.

I. EXTENSION REQUESTS

The motion to extend and the counter-motion to extend are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows. The parties' positions are ground largely in competing accusations of wrongdoing and discovery violations. There is no need for the Court to get into the weeds on those issues for the purposes of ruling on an extension request because, regardless, it is clear that there is good cause for an extension. The Court will extend the discovery period generally (i.e., not for the limited purpose of conducting depositions). The Court will provide the extension within the default framework provided by the local rules (using calendar dates), rather than the alternative framework proposed by Defendants.

For good cause shown, the Court EXTENDS deadlines as follows:

II. MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff also filed a motion strike Defendants' countermotion as being "immaterial" pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 66. As is clear from the language quoted by Plaintiff, Rule 12(f) enables courts to strike matters "from a pleading." Plaintiff is seeking to strike language from a motion. As such, "[m]ovant has fallen victim to one of the classic blunders: attempting to extend Rule 12(f)'s striking power beyond pleadings." United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 2014 WL 4960915, at *1 (D. Nev. June 4, 2014). Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.