CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC v. SATICOY BAY, LLC, 2:15-cv-01852-APG-PAL. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160129e32
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . The court conducted a hearing on January 26, 2016, on the parties' Joint Scheduling Order Pursuant to LR 26-1 Between Carrington and Saticoy (Dkt. #41) which requested special scheduling review. Maximilliano Couvillier appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and Michael Bohn, Ashlie Surur, and Nicole Lovelock appeared on behalf of Defendants. The parties requested an extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines to delay discovery against C
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . The court conducted a hearing on January 26, 2016, on the parties' Joint Scheduling Order Pursuant to LR 26-1 Between Carrington and Saticoy (Dkt. #41) which requested special scheduling review. Maximilliano Couvillier appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and Michael Bohn, Ashlie Surur, and Nicole Lovelock appeared on behalf of Defendants. The parties requested an extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines to delay discovery against Ca..
More
ORDER
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
The court conducted a hearing on January 26, 2016, on the parties' Joint Scheduling Order Pursuant to LR 26-1 Between Carrington and Saticoy (Dkt. #41) which requested special scheduling review. Maximilliano Couvillier appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and Michael Bohn, Ashlie Surur, and Nicole Lovelock appeared on behalf of Defendants. The parties requested an extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines to delay discovery against Cactus Springs while the court considers a pending motion to dismiss cross claims which raises arguments based on NRS 38.310. Counsel indicate the only discovery needed is to obtain records and a custodian of records deposition from 2 or 3 entities. Given the modest amount of discovery needed the court advised counsel that a standard 180-day discovery plan would be entered, and that any delay in completing discovery to wait for a decision of the pending motion was done at the risk the cutoff would expire and an extension would not be allowed. Defendants Answer (Dkt. #18) was filed on October 22, 2015. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The parties' Joint Scheduling Order (Dkt. #41) is DENIED, and the following discovery plan and scheduling order dates shall apply:
a. Last date to complete discovery: April 19, 2016.
b. Last date to amend pleadings and add parties: Expired.
c. Last date to file interim status report: February 19, 2016.
d. Last date to disclose experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2): March 21, 2016.
e. Last date to disclose rebuttal experts: March 21, 2016.
f. Last date to file dispositive motions: May 19, 2016.
g. Last date to file joint pretrial order: June 20, 2016. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 days after a decision of the dispositive motions.
2. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and any objections thereto, shall be included in the pretrial order.
3. Applications to extend any dates set by this discovery plan and scheduling order shall, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend discovery shall be received no later than 4:00 p.m., March 29, 2016, and shall fully comply with the requirements of LR 26-4.
Source: Leagle
