Gould v. Trinity Services Group, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 4, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00045
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 STEVEN ERIC GOULD, Case No. 2:21-cv-00045-APG-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 51] 10 TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’1 motion to reopen discovery or to dismiss. Docket 13 No. 51. The Court does not require a response. 14 The Court first addresses the alternative request to dismiss. Courts do not address requests 15 that are not supported by meaningfully developed argument. See Kor Media Grp, LLC v. Green, 16 297 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). Counsel should take special care in presenting robust 17 legal and factual showings when seeking significant relief. E.g., Taddeo v. Am. Invsco Corp., 2015 18 WL 751072, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2015). The request for dismissal does not include citation to 19 any legal authority providing for such relief and is not predicated on any meaningfully developed 20 argument. 21 The Court next addresses the request to reopen discovery. As a threshold matter, the 22 motion seems to indicate that counsel was ignorant to the fact that a scheduling order was entered 23 in this case prior to Defendants’ appearances. Meaningful explanation has not been presented as 24 to why counsel did not familiarize themselves with the docket upon entering an open case or why 25 the instant request is being made more than three months thereafter.2 Lastly, no explanation has 26 1 The motion is brought by Defendants Trinity Services, Emonie Harvey, and F. Mendoza. 27 Defendant Roman Logan has been dismissed. See Docket No. 47. 28 2 Defendants appear to place the blame on Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, for not serving them with a copy of the scheduling order upon their appearance in the case. See Docket No. 51 at 2. 1} been provided as to why a full 180 days is needed for discovery in this prisoner civil rights case. 2|| Cf Docket No. 17 at 2 (providing discovery period of 90 days). 3 Accordingly, the motion to reopen discovery or to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. 4| To the extent Defendants believe discovery is needed and that sufficient grounds to reopen 5| discovery exist, Defendants must file a renewed request to reopen discovery that includes 6|| meaningful discussion as to how the applicable standards are met, as well as a proposed schedule? 7|| and meaningful discussion in support of the period of discovery sought. Any renewed request to 8|| reopen discovery must be filed by April 18, 2022. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: April 4, 2022 ge.

Nancy J. Koppe \ 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23), ———__"W[/{$ The cited portion of the scheduling order requires service of the scheduling order when “additional 24! parties [are] joined or brought into this action” pursuant to Rules 13, 14, 19, or 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 17 at 1. The motion fails to explain why this provision was 25} triggered in this case. See Docket No. 6 at 2-3 (initial complaint naming Trinity Services, Emonie Harvey, and F. Mendoza as defendants). > The instant motion indicates that a proposed discovery plan would be filed after the motion is resolved. Docket No. 51 at 3. Parties seeking relief from deadlines must provide a proposed schedule in that request. Local Rule 26-3(d). Hence, any renewed motion must include 28] calendar dates for any and all deadlines that Defendants seek to reset.