Wolf v. Clark County Department of Family Services, 2:17-cv-02084-JCM-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180514a62
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 11, 2018
Latest Update: May 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 72) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' second stipulation to extend discovery deadlines, filed on May 10, 2018. Docket No. 72. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES without prejudice this stipulation. The parties request an extension because they "have arrived at an agreement allowing Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint against Clark County," and submit that they intend to file "a stipulation to that effect.
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 72) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' second stipulation to extend discovery deadlines, filed on May 10, 2018. Docket No. 72. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES without prejudice this stipulation. The parties request an extension because they "have arrived at an agreement allowing Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint against Clark County," and submit that they intend to file "a stipulation to that effect."..
More
ORDER (Docket No. 72)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' second stipulation to extend discovery deadlines, filed on May 10, 2018. Docket No. 72. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES without prejudice this stipulation.
The parties request an extension because they "have arrived at an agreement allowing Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint against Clark County," and submit that they intend to file "a stipulation to that effect." Docket No. 72 at 2. The Court cannot issue an order to extend discovery deadlines based on hypothetical filings. Further, the parties fail to demonstrate good cause for a 90-day extension. Finally, the parties submit that some discovery has not been produced because they are waiting for a protective order to be entered by the Court. Id. The Court, however, granted the parties' protective order on January 29, 2018. Docket No. 55.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties' stipulation to extend discovery deadlines. Docket No. 72.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
