Peters v. Sampson, 2:17-cv-02706-JCM-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180312c11
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 13) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order by 120 days. Docket No. 13. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 15, 17. The motion is properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Although the circumstances leave much to be desired, good cause exists for a 60-day extension to the deadlines that had not expired prior to the fil
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 13) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order by 120 days. Docket No. 13. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 15, 17. The motion is properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Although the circumstances leave much to be desired, good cause exists for a 60-day extension to the deadlines that had not expired prior to the fili..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 13)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order by 120 days. Docket No. 13. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 15, 17. The motion is properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Although the circumstances leave much to be desired, good cause exists for a 60-day extension to the deadlines that had not expired prior to the filing of the motion.1 Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and deadlines are SET as follows:
• Initial Experts: April 23, 2018;
• Interim status report: April 23, 2018;
• Rebuttal experts: May 23, 2018;
• Discovery cutoff: June 22, 2018;
• Dispositive motions: July 23, 2018;
• Joint proposed pretrial order: August 22, 2018, or 30 days after dispositive motions are resolved.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The deadline to amend the pleadings expired a month before the motion was filed and, therefore, the request to reopen that deadline must be supported by both good cause and excusable neglect. See, e.g., Local Rule 26-4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Insufficient justification exists to reopen that deadline.
2. The Court does not herein opine on the pending motion to compel an independent medical examination. Docket No. 14.
Source: Leagle
