Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

American General Life Insurance Companry v. Vistana Condominium Owners Assocaiation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA


May 10, 2013

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANRY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VISTANA CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCAIATION, ET AL. , DEFENDANTS.

Ex Parte Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines (#62) and Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines (#63)

ORDER

Before the Court is the Defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines (#62) and Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines (#63), filed on May 9, 2013. The parties are requesting an "approximately 90 day" extension.

As an initial manner, the Court notes that the Defendant's Motion (#62) and Motion (#63) are virtually identical. The only difference is that Motion (#62) includes the words "ex parte" and Motion (#63) includes a proposed order for the Court. Thus, the Defendant has filed duplicative motions which wastes the Court's time and resources. The Court will refrain from sanctioning this conduct at this time, but moving forward, the Court warns that sanctions may be imposed for such behavior.

Next, applications to extend any date set by the discovery plan must be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension and be "received by the Court no later than twenty-one (21) daysbefore the expiration of the subject deadline." LR 26-4. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to act as the result of excusable neglect. Id.

Here, the Defendant has shown good cause for the requested extension. However, the request to extend the expert designation deadline was filed after the deadline had expired. Therefore, under the Local Rules, the Defendant is required to show excusable neglect. However, in the present motions, the Defendant has failed to argue that excusable neglect exists. The Court cannot infer that excusable neglect exists.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines (#62) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines (#63) is DENIED without prejudice.

20130510

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.