Gallagher-Kaiser Corporation v. Liberty Duct, LLC

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Gallagher-Kaiser Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00869-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Liberty Duct, LLC; et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery plan and scheduling order.1 (ECF No. 13 169). Gallagher-Kaiser Corporation; Bio-Shield Tech LLC; and Hartford Casualty Insurance 14 Company propose deadlines for discovery. NGM Insurance Company proposes a stay of 15 discovery until after the Court issues a decision on its pending motion to dismiss. However, 16 NGM has not separately moved to stay discovery or provided the appropriate analysis for the 17 Court to do so. See Schrader v. Wynn, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 18 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (providing that a court may grant motions to stay discovery when a 19 dispositive motion is pending if: (1) the dispositive motion can be decided without further 20 discovery; and (2) good cause exists to stay discovery). The Court thus grants the discovery 21 22

23 1 Plaintiff Gallagher-Kaiser Corporation and Defendants Bio-Shield Tech LLC; Hartford Casualty 24 Insurance Company; and NGM Insurance Company all agreed to the discovery plan and scheduling order. Counsel for Liberty Duct, LLC withdrew from the case and no additional 25 counsel has made an appearance. The parties thus sent a copy of the discovery plan and scheduling order to the last known contact for Liberty Duct, but received no response. Because 26 not all parties have joined the motion, the Court refers to it as joint—rather than stipulated— 27 discovery plan and scheduling order. See Local Rule 7-1(c) (“[a] stipulation that has been signed by fewer than all the parties or their attorneys will be treated—and must be filed—as a joint 1 schedule proposed in the discovery plan (with the exception of certain dates that do not comport 2 with the timeframes outlined in Local Rule 26-1(b)) and denies NGM’s request to stay discovery. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ joint discovery plan (ECF No. 169) is 5 granted in part and denied in part. It is granted in part regarding the proposed discovery plan 6 and the parties’ other agreed-upon provisions. It is denied in part regarding certain of the parties’ 7 deadlines and NGM’s request to stay discovery. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the below deadlines shall govern discovery: 9 Initial disclosures: June 26, 2023 10 Amend pleadings/add parties: November 30, 2023 11 Expert disclosures: January 2, 20242 12 Rebuttal expert disclosures: February 1, 2024 13 Close of discovery: February 28, 2024 14 Dispositive motions: March 29, 2024 15 Joint pretrial order: April 29, 20243 16 17 DATED: June 2, 2023 18 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 2 This date has been moved to the next date that is neither a holiday nor a weekend. 27 3 This date has been moved to the next date that is not a weekend. Additionally, under Local Rule 26-1(b)(5), “[i]f dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be