Gutierrez v. Regal Entertainment Group, 17CV2512 WQH (BGS). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180822a01
Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES [ECF 14] BERNARD G. SKOMAL , Magistrate Judge . On August 21, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines. (ECF 14.) The Joint Motion fails to comply with the undersigned's Chambers Rules. (Section III.C.1.) The Joint Motion lacks "a declaration from counsel of record detailing the steps taken to comply with the dates and deadlines set in the order, the specific reasons why deadlines cannot be met, and we
Summary: ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES [ECF 14] BERNARD G. SKOMAL , Magistrate Judge . On August 21, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines. (ECF 14.) The Joint Motion fails to comply with the undersigned's Chambers Rules. (Section III.C.1.) The Joint Motion lacks "a declaration from counsel of record detailing the steps taken to comply with the dates and deadlines set in the order, the specific reasons why deadlines cannot be met, and wel..
More
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES
[ECF 14]
BERNARD G. SKOMAL, Magistrate Judge.
On August 21, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines. (ECF 14.) The Joint Motion fails to comply with the undersigned's Chambers Rules. (Section III.C.1.) The Joint Motion lacks "a declaration from counsel of record detailing the steps taken to comply with the dates and deadlines set in the order, the specific reasons why deadlines cannot be met, and well as the specific discovery that has been conducted, and what specific discovery remains outstanding." (Id.) The Joint Motion itself also does not include this information, resulting in a failure to show good cause for any of the extensions requested. The parties provide absolutely no explanation why they have not or cannot comply with the Scheduling Order. Additionally, the parties are seeking extensions to complete fact discovery, a deadline that past more than a month ago, but fail to address excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) ("When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend time: . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." (emphasis added)). For these reasons, the Joint Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
