Paulo v. Williams

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 14, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00474
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 JUSTIN PAULO, 5 Case No. 2:19-cv-00474-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 6 ORDER v. 7 [Docket No. 34] BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery deadlines. Docket No. 11 34. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ response,1 and Plaintiff’s reply. 12 Docket Nos. 34, 36-1, 37. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See LR 78-1. 13 “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.I.C. v. 14 Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Parties should strive to be cooperative, practical, 15 and sensible, and should seek judicial intervention “only in extraordinary situations that implicate 16 truly significant interests.” In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. 17 Cal. 1985). Discovery motions will not be considered “unless the movant (1) has made a good 18 faith effort to meet and confer . . . before filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting 19 forth the details and results of the meet-and-confer conference about each disputed discovery 20 request.” LR 26-6(c). 21 Plaintiff requests a 180-day extension of discovery deadlines.2 Docket No. 43 at 1. 22 Plaintiff submits that good cause exists for the requested extension because the COVID-19 23 24 1 On June 8, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to correct for scrivener’s errors. Docket No. 35. Defendants submit that their response filed at Docket No. 35 contains grammatical errors and 25 accidentally omits a legal authority. Id. at 3. Defendants, therefore, ask the Court to substitute its response filed at Docket No. 36-1 in place of its response filed at Docket No. 35. Id. The Court 26 GRANTS Defendants’ motion and, in resolving the instant motion, has considered their response filed at Docket No. 36-1. 27 2 Plaintiff submits that he filed the instant motion with assistance from inmate Jesse A. 28 Ross. Docket No. 34 at 1. 1} pandemic and “extreme violence” within the prison where he is detained have prevented him from accessing the law library. /d. at 3. Plaintiff submits that this “disruption of normal operations” 3] has delayed his ability to engage in discovery. /d. Plaintiff further submits that he intends to serve 4] additional discovery requests upon reviewing Defendants’ responses to his first set of discovery 5] requests. Id. at 3-4. 6 In response, Defendants submit that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer before he filed the 7| instant motion. Docket No. 36-1 at 8. Nonetheless, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's request 8|| for an extension in part and propose a 90-day extension of discovery deadlines. /d. at 8. 9 In reply, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant his request for a 180-day extension of discovery 10] deadlines. Docket No. 37 at 4. 11 The Court finds that a 90-day extension of discovery deadlines is appropriate in this case. 12] Although the Court has considered this motion despite the lack of a proper meet and confer, the Court cautions Plaintiff that he must strictly comply with all rules as this case proceeds. The Court 14] will not consider a discovery motion without a proper meet and confer. 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery deadlines, Docket No. 34, is hereby 16] GRANTED in part. The Court extends the deadlines as follows: 17 e Amend pleadings/add parties: August 30, 2021 18 e Discovery cutoff: September 27, 2021 19 e Discovery motions: October 11, 2021 20 e Dispositive motions: October 27, 2021 21 e Joint proposed pretrial order: November 29, 2021° 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: June 14, 2021 54 □□ Ze 6 — fe - —. Nancy J~Koppe 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27), ——________ > If dispositive motions are filed, this date will be suspended until 30 days after the 28] dispositive motions are decided or further Court order. See LR 26-1(b)(5).