Timmons v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 2:16-cv-02229-JCM-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20191113b92
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER [Docket No. 66] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant LVMPD's motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline by 30 days. Docket No. 66. 1 Requests to extend deadlines in the scheduling order require a showing of "good cause," Local Rule 26-4, which turns on whether the subject deadline cannot be met despite the diligence of the movant, see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 , 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The instant motion is p
Summary: ORDER [Docket No. 66] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant LVMPD's motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline by 30 days. Docket No. 66. 1 Requests to extend deadlines in the scheduling order require a showing of "good cause," Local Rule 26-4, which turns on whether the subject deadline cannot be met despite the diligence of the movant, see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 , 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The instant motion is pr..
More
ORDER
[Docket No. 66]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant LVMPD's motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline by 30 days. Docket No. 66.1 Requests to extend deadlines in the scheduling order require a showing of "good cause," Local Rule 26-4, which turns on whether the subject deadline cannot be met despite the diligence of the movant, see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The instant motion is predicated almost exclusively on the fact that counsel's assistant's employment was terminated on October 31, 2019. Docket No. 66 at 4. The motion also references discussions by Defendants regarding NaphCare potentially assuming LVMPD's defense. See id. Such reasons do not justify a 30-day extension. Instead, the Court finds that they justify a 14-day extension.2
Accordingly, the pending motion to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The dispositive motion deadline is EXTENDED to November 26, 2019. All other deadlines remain unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The motion indicates that it is the first extension request, but the dispositive motion deadline has been extended three times previously. In granting the last extension, the Court indicated that it was "not inclined to grant further extensions." Docket No. 59 at 2 (emphasis in original).
2. The motion makes vague reference to the potential for reopening discovery deadlines. See, e.g., Docket No. 66 at 4. No showing is made to justify such relief. To the extent the motion includes an implicit request to reopen discovery, that request is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
