Holmes v. Laboratory Corporation of America

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Maurice Holmes, Case No. 2:23-cv-00024-MMD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Laboratory Corporation of America; Family 9 Support Division (Clark County, Nevada); Lammie King; Clark County, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Maurice Holmes’ motion “to continue proceedings,” filed on 13 August 28, 2023. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff asks that “all proceedings in the ongoing suit be put 14 ‘on hold’ until December 1, 2023” and that “all deadlines [] be continued for 90 days…” He 15 explains that he lacks the legal tools necessary to prosecute his suit because the prison in which 16 he is housed has mainly criminal law materials, he is currently dealing with COVID-19 17 conditions at the prison, and he is in the process of transferring from prison to prison. Plaintiff 18 adds that he anticipates being released on December 1, 2023, after which he will be better able to 19 litigate his claims. No party responded to Plaintiff’s motion. However, on September 18, 2023, 20 Defendants Clark County and Lammie King filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19). 21 The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion. The Court denies the 22 motion to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to stay the case because the Court finds that a stay could 23 result in prejudice to Plaintiff. The Court grants the motion to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to 24 extend the discovery deadlines. 25 I. Legal standard. 26 A. Motions to stay a case. 27 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 1 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In deciding whether 2 to grant a stay, the court considers (1) the possible damage which may result from granting the 3 stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and 4 (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, 5 proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Lockyer v. Mirant 6 Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 268). 7 B. Motions to extend discovery. 8 A party seeking to extend a deadline before that deadline has expired must show good 9 cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); see Local Rule 26-3. A party seeking to extend a deadline 10 after that deadline has expired must show that the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 11 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); see Local Rule IA 6-1(a). 12 II. Discussion. 13 The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion “to continue proceedings.” 14 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it requests a stay of the case. Under the first 15 factor the Court must consider in determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court finds that a 16 stay could cause damage to Plaintiff. Shortly after Plaintiff moved for a stay, Defendants filed a 17 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to that motion. If the 18 Court were to stay the case, it would prevent Plaintiff from responding or seeking additional time 19 to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 20 The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it requests an extension of the discovery 21 deadlines. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect to extend the 22 deadline to amend pleadings and add parties, which deadline passed on August 4, 2023.1 Plaintiff 23 has demonstrated good cause to extend the remaining deadlines. The Court thus grants in part 24 and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion “to continue proceedings.” Plaintiff is informed that this 25 order does not extend any deadlines related to Defendants Clark County and Lammie King’s 26 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) filed on September 18, 2023. 27 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion “to continue proceedings” (ECF 2 No. 18) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied in part to the extent it 3 seeks to stay the case. It is granted in part to the extent it seeks to extend discovery deadlines. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court extends all discovery deadlines for ninety 5 days. The following deadlines shall govern discovery in this case: 6 7 Amending pleadings/adding parties: November 2, 2023 8 Discovery cutoff: December 4, 2023 9 Discovery motions: December 18, 2023 10 Dispositive motions: January 2, 2024 11 Joint pretrial order: January 31, 20242 12 13 DATED: October 10, 2023 14 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 Under Local Rule 26-1(b)(5), if dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until thirty days after decision on the dispositive motions or