SUSTRIK v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 2:16-cv-02866-RFB-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171023k45
Visitors: 17
Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 57) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to extend the discovery cutoff by 90 days. Docket No. 57. Defendant filed a response in partial opposition, agreeing only to an extension of 30 days. Docket No. 60. Plaintiffs filed a reply. Docket No. 62. Had common-sense practicality and cooperation prevailed during the meet-and-confer process, this dispute would not have required judicial intervention. Cf. Olesczuk v. Citizens One H
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 57) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to extend the discovery cutoff by 90 days. Docket No. 57. Defendant filed a response in partial opposition, agreeing only to an extension of 30 days. Docket No. 60. Plaintiffs filed a reply. Docket No. 62. Had common-sense practicality and cooperation prevailed during the meet-and-confer process, this dispute would not have required judicial intervention. Cf. Olesczuk v. Citizens One Ho..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 57)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to extend the discovery cutoff by 90 days. Docket No. 57. Defendant filed a response in partial opposition, agreeing only to an extension of 30 days. Docket No. 60. Plaintiffs filed a reply. Docket No. 62. Had common-sense practicality and cooperation prevailed during the meet-and-confer process, this dispute would not have required judicial intervention. Cf. Olesczuk v. Citizens One Home Loans, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 153342, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2016).1 Having now reviewed the motion and briefing, the Court finds good cause exists for a 60-day extension of the discovery cutoff and subsequent deadlines.2 The motion to extend is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and deadlines are SET as follows:
• Discovery cutoff: January 8, 2018
• Dispositive motions: February 7, 2018
• Joint proposed pretrial order: March 9, 2018
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The parties contacted chambers in an attempt to resolve this dispute informally pursuant to Local Rule 1-1(b) before conducting their required meet-and-confer on the dispute. See Docket No. 57-1 at ¶ 22 ("Because the Court indicated its preference for briefing, the parties held their 26-7 conference"). As the Court has explained previously, an informal conference with chambers may not be used a substitute for conducting a meet-and-confer. See Olesczuk, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 153342, at *2 ("Local Rule 1-1 has not transformed magistrate judges into clearinghouses for resolving insignificant discovery disputes. Counsel are still expected to seek court involvement as a last resort only when a discovery dispute implicates truly significant interests that counsel cannot resolve through reasonable cooperation during the meet-and-confer process").
2. In briefing the motion to extend, the parties provide argument regarding the appropriateness of certain discovery sought. The Court expresses no opinion herein on those issues.
Source: Leagle
