Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GALLAGHER-KAISER CORPORATION v. LIBERTY DUCT, LLC, 2:14-cv-00869-JAD-NJK. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160119a36 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 36) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Liberty Duct's motion to "stay" proceedings pending the appearance of third-party defendant Archer Western Contractors, LLC. Docket No. 36. Plaintiff filed a response not opposing the vacation of the current deadlines in the scheduling order so long as discovery continues to be ongoing. Docket No. 40. Defendant filed a reply clarifying that it is not seeking a stay of discovery. Docket No. 41. D
More

ORDER

(Docket No. 36)

Pending before the Court is Defendant Liberty Duct's motion to "stay" proceedings pending the appearance of third-party defendant Archer Western Contractors, LLC. Docket No. 36. Plaintiff filed a response not opposing the vacation of the current deadlines in the scheduling order so long as discovery continues to be ongoing. Docket No. 40. Defendant filed a reply clarifying that it is not seeking a stay of discovery. Docket No. 41. Defendant Bio Shield Tech, LLC filed a joinder to the motion. Docket No. 42. The motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The parties held their Rule 26(f) conference on December 16, 2014. See Docket No. 20 at 2. As such, discovery has been ongoing in this case for over a year, and the current discovery cutoff is March 15, 2016. See Docket No. 29. Given the relatively late-stage of discovery, the Court is not inclined to simply vacate all deadlines in the scheduling order to be reset at an unknown date after the newly-added third-party defendant responds to the third-party complaint. That is especially true given that the motion and briefing consist of bare-bones assertions that vacating the current deadlines furthers the "interest in fair and equitable discovery." Docket No. 36. This case will not proceed without any deadlines in place for an indefinite period. As such, rather than vacating the current deadlines, the Court will extend them for 60 days. To the extent the parties believe further extensions are required, they may file a request seeking such relief when appropriate. Cf. Local Rule 26-4 (discussing timing requirements for extending deadlines in the scheduling order).1

The parties are ORDERED to diligently conduct discovery at this time. The deadlines in the scheduling order are further AMENDED as follows:2

• Initial expert disclosures: March 15, 2016 • Interim status report: March 15, 2016 • Rebuttal experts: April 14, 2016 • Discovery cutoff: May 13, 2016 • Dispositive motions: June 13, 2016 • Joint pretrial order: July 13, 2016

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Court expresses no opinion herein whether it would grant such a request.
2. The deadline to amend the pleadings or add new parties expired on December 16, 2015, Docket No. 29, roughly three weeks before the pending motion was filed. The parties have not shown good cause or excusable neglect to extend that deadline, as required by Local Rule 26-4. As such, the Court will not extend the deadline to amend the pleadings or add new parties.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer