IPFS CORPORATION v. CARRILLO, 2:14-cv-00509-GMN-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150610e03
Filed: Jun. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 71) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. Docket No. 71. Defendant filed a response and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 73, 74. The gist of the dispute is whether Plaintiff can reopen discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining updated discovery from Plaintiff's current employer (a non-party), arguing that its damages are on-going and that it needs updated discovery through the date of trial in orde
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 71) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. Docket No. 71. Defendant filed a response and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 73, 74. The gist of the dispute is whether Plaintiff can reopen discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining updated discovery from Plaintiff's current employer (a non-party), arguing that its damages are on-going and that it needs updated discovery through the date of trial in order..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 71)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. Docket No. 71. Defendant filed a response and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 73, 74. The gist of the dispute is whether Plaintiff can reopen discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining updated discovery from Plaintiff's current employer (a non-party), arguing that its damages are on-going and that it needs updated discovery through the date of trial in order to support its claim. Neither party provides authority addressing whether it is proper to allow discovery to support an on-going damages claim after the discovery cut-off.1 The Court declines to undertake that analysis without meaningful discussion from the parties. Accordingly, the motion to reopen discovery is hereby DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's motion is woefully lacking in legal authority or discussion, as the only mention of legal authority is a passing reference to Local Rule 26-4. See Docket No. 71 at 3.
Source: Leagle
