Holmes v. Reusch

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01138
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 David Holmes, Case No. 2:24-cv-01138-GMN-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Jason Reusch, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court are two motions: Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Consolidate Cases 11 (ECF No. 57) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions (ECF No. 12 59). Defendants responded at ECF No. 60, and the Court construes this filing as a response to 13 both motions. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 This is a consolidated case consisting of case numbers 2:24-cv-01575-JAD-DJA and 2:24- 16 cv-01138-GMN-BNW (this case). Last month, District Judge Navarro consolidated these cases 17 under 2:24-cv-01138-GMN-BNW, and she administratively closed 2:24-cv-01575-JAD-DJA. 18 ECF No. 55. As part of that consolidation order, District Judge Navarro directed Plaintiff to file a 19 Second Amended Complaint by April 21, 2025. Id. She did not modify or otherwise mention the 20 operative scheduling order (ECF No. 50) in this case. Id. 21 In Plaintiff’s first motion, he asks this Court for a 30-day extension to consolidate the 22 cases, to allow Defendants time to comply with their discovery obligations, and to provide more 23 time for him to review discovery. ECF No. 57 at 2. Because the cases have already been 24 consolidated, this Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request to extend all discovery 25 deadlines. In Plaintiff’s second motion, he asks this Court to compel Defendants to respond to his 26 discovery requests and for sanctions. ECF No. 59 at 1–4. Defendants respond that case number 27 2:24-cv-01138-GMN-BNW was dismissed on March 19, 2025, and thus they have no discovery 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by a discovery plan or scheduling order 3 must be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. LR 26-3. “[O]nce a Rule 16 4 scheduling order is in place, it ‘shall control the subsequent course of the action’ unless modified 5 for good cause.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 250 F.R.D. 452, 456–57 (N.D. Cal. 6 2008) (quoting Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 7 2002)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and 8 with the judge’s consent.”). 9 Here, there is good cause to extend all discovery deadlines by 45 days to: (1) allow 10 Plaintiff, who is pro se, to review/conduct discovery and file a Second Amended Complaint; and 11 (2) allow Defendants time to fully respond to the motion to compel and meet forthcoming 12 discovery deadlines. In addition, Defendants are incorrect that case number 2:24-cv-01138-GMN- 13 BNW was dismissed and there is no operative scheduling order. ECF No. 60 at 1. 2:24-cv-01138- 14 GMN-BNW is not closed, and the scheduling order (ECF No. 50) remains in effect. Because 15 discovery is ongoing, the Court orders Defendants to provide a more fulsome response to 16 Plaintiff’s motion to compel, so that the Court can properly decide that motion. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 57) 19 is GRANTED. The new deadlines are as follows: 20 Second-Amended Complaint: June 5, 2025 21 Expert Disclosures: May 19, 2025 22 Rebuttal Disclosures: June 19, 2025 23 Discovery Cut-Off: July 17, 2025 24 Dispositive Motions: August 18, 2025 25 Joint Pre-Trial Order: September 15, 2025. However, in the event dispositive 26 motions are filed, the proposed Joint Pretrial Order must be 27 filed 30 days after a decision of the dispositive motions is ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must file a more fulsome response to 2 || Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions (ECF No. 59) by May 7, 3 || 2025. 4 5 DATED: April 30, 2025 6 7 Kx ger la WEEK BRENDA WEKSLER 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28