Amerson v. Las Vegas College

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01589
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 GENAY L. AMERSON, an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 LAS VEGAS COLLEGE, MIKHAIL EDUCATION CORPORATION, a domestic 8 corporation; PETER MIKHAIL, PRESIDENT OF MIKHAIL EDUCATION 9 CORPORATION; DOES 1 through 10; ROE Entities 11 through 20, inclusive jointly and 10 severally,

11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery (ECF No. 54). The 14 Court considered the Motion and Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 55). 15 Before embarking on a discussion of the merits of the Motion to Extend Discovery, the Court 16 corrects what appears to be Defendants’ misunderstanding regarding the Court’s Order setting a due 17 date for a response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 37, 41. The Court did not 18 order Defendants to file any particular type of response; nor did the Court suggest the Second 19 Amended Complaint was properly filed under the Federal or Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. 20 The Court’s Order also expressed no opinion on the viability of the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s 21 Second Amended Complaint. Id. Any representation suggesting the contrary is simply erroneous. 22 With respect to the Motion to Extend Discovery, Defendants ask the Court to set a discovery 23 cutoff of “180 days” after “the date that Defendants are ordered to Answer Plaintiff’s Amended 24 Complaint following a ruling on the currently pending motions ….” ECF No. 54 at 7. The currently 25 pending motions include Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 26 and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 45, 53. While it is unknown when these 27 Motions will be decided by District Judge Boulware, given the Court’s workload and that the Motion 1 creates an open-ended period of discovery that is disfavored by the courts. See Schafer v. Ashworth, 2 Case No. 2:06-cv-1259-MCE-DAD, 2007 WL 4365495, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2007) 3 To the extent Defendants are seeking either to conduct Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) 4 discovery in response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or a stay of discovery pending 5 the outcome of the Motion to Dismiss that may either dispose of this case or arguably result in a 6 very different set of issues subject to discovery, Defendants do not address these standards either of 7 which may be easily satisfied. What the Court cannot do is grant an extension of discovery and 8 scheduling order that provides no scheduled dates by which specific tasks related to the case must 9 be completed as this is contrary to Rule 1 of the Federal Rules and the Court’s obligation to manage 10 the docket in this case. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ODERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery (ECF 12 No. 54) is DENIED without prejudice. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may seek a stay of discovery meeting the 14 standard established in Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). This 15 includes considering whether (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive, (2) the potentially 16 dispositive motion can be decided without conducting additional discovery, and (3) after taking a 17 “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion, the Court is convinced 18 Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Id. at 602-03. Alternatively, Defendants may 19 propose a specific extended discovery period and scheduling plan with cutoff dates. 20 Dated this 24th day of March, 2025.

22 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27