Leftenant v. Blackmon

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 NATHAN LEFTENANT, ARNETT Case No. 2:18-CV-01948-RCJ-EJY LEFTENANT, JERYL BRIGHT and 5 GREGORY JOHNSON,

6 Plaintiff, ORDER

7 v.

8 LAWRENCE (“LARRY”) BLACKMON,

9 Defendants.

10 11 Before the Court is the parties’ joint Consent Motion Amend Scheduling Order (the “Consent 12 Motion”). ECF No. 36. A search of the court’s docket shows that no party appearing in this matter 13 has filed a motion seeking a stay discovery; although, the Consent Motion functionally seeks such a 14 stay until underlying motions are decided by the Court. A stay of discovery is an extraordinary 15 remedy, is not warranted here. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011). 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Consent Motion to Amend Scheduling Order 18 (ECF No. 36) is DENIED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may file a proposed extension of discovery 20 deadlines and other dates as established in ECF No. 31 within fifteen days of this Order. The 21 proposed request shall comply with Local Rule 26-4. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF No. 35 is DENIED as moot. 23 24 DATED: August 21, 2019 25 26