Thomas McGarry v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 23, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01931
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Thomas McGarry, Case No. 2:24-cv-01931-JAD-NJK 5 Plaintiff, Order 6 v. [Docket No. 50] 7 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 8 Defendant. 9 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Docket No. 50. The 10 Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant’s response, and Plaintiff’s reply. Docket Nos. 11 50, 51, 53. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the 12 reasons discussed below, the motion to compel is DENIED. 13 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 14 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court also has broad authority to enforce the case management 15 deadlines established in its scheduling order. See, e.g., Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 16 439 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 2006). A motion to compel must not be filed with undue delay. V5 17 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 360-61 (D. Nev. 2019). In addition, a motion to compel 18 filed after the outer deadline1 is presumptively untimely and will not be considered absent unusual 19 circumstances. See, e.g., Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 332 F.R.D. 351, 354 (D. Nev. 2019).2 20 “Untimeliness is sufficient ground, standing alone, to deny a discovery motion.” KST Data, Inc. 21 v. DXC Tech. Co., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1132, 1136 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Williams v. Las Vegas 22 23 1 In cases in which no outer deadline for discovery motions is established in the scheduling 24 order, the outer limit is by default the dispositive motion deadline. E.g., Gault v. Nabisco Biscuit Co., 184 F.R.D. 620, 622 (D. Nev. 1999). When a scheduling order includes a different deadline 25 for discovery motions, however, that deadline controls. See, e.g., Gray v. Cox, 2016 WL 4367236, at *1, *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2016). 26 2 Courts sometimes analyze a variety of factors in deciding whether a discovery motion 27 was filed with undue delay, but such analysis is generally not required when a motion to compel is filed after the outer deadline since it is presumptively untimely. E.g., V5 Technologies, 332 28 F.R.D. at 361 n.3. Metro. Police Dept., 2015 WL 3489553, at *1 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015)); see also Gray, 2016 WL 2|| 4367236, at *3 (denying motion to compel filed by pro se prisoner on timeliness grounds). 3 In this case, the dispositive motion deadline was November 12, 2025. Docket No. 49 at 2. Plaintiff did not file the instant motion, however, until February 17, 2026, more than three months 5| after the dispositive motion deadline. See Docket No. 50 (notice of electronic filing). Hence, the motion is untimely on its face and no unusual circumstances have been presented. 7 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to compel is DENIED. Docket No. 50. Further, despite 8|| the Court’s order to file their joint proposed pretrial order by December 15, 2025, Docket No. 49 9] at 2, the parties have failed to comply. The Court therefore ORDERS the parties to file their joint proposed pretrial order no later than May 7, 2026. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: April 23, 2026 he Nancy, Koppe 14 United Statés Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28