Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Sargant v. Staffing

United States District Court, District of Nevada

December 12, 2014

TIFFANY SARGANT, et al., Plaintiff,
v.
H.G. STAFFING, etc., Defendant.

ORDER RE: DOC. ## 72, 73, 75, 77 & 78

WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court are motions and counter motions to hold opposing parties in contempt, to compel discovery, to extend the discovery deadline, to strike the consents which the Defendants' employees have filed, and to award attorneys fees and costs as sanctions. (Docs, ## 72, 73, 75, 77, and 78.)[1] Although the court will grant Plaintiffs' request to extend the discovery deadline (contained within Doc.# 72 at 7), the court denies the motions for the reasons stated herein.

I. Background

The history and background of this lawsuit are set forth in this Court's discovery order of April 23, 2014 (Doc. # 37), and the May 6, 2014, Order of Senior District Judge Larry R. Hicks regarding Plaintiffs' Request for Circulation of Notice, et al. (Doc. # 40.) Therefore, the court will not restate the history of the case further at this time.

II. Separate Filings for Distinct Issues

Paragraph III.4. of Special Order 109 provides as follows:

4. Document Type
A separate document must be filed for each type of document or purpose. Examples: separate documents must be filed for response and motion rather than a response and counter motion in one document. Motions may ask for only one type of unrelated relief thus, rather than filing a motion to severe and to dismiss, a separate motion to severe and a separate motion to dismiss must be filed.[2]

The parties' filings have improperly combined motions addressing distinct and separate topics. For example, Plaintiffs' motion combines a motion to hold Defendants in contempt with a request to extend the discovery and scheduling deadlines. (Doc. # 72.) Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion combines an opposition to the motion with Defendants' counter motion for contempt and to compel. (Doc. # 75.)[3] While the court in this instance addresses the subject of the parties' filings (with the exception of the relief Defendants appear to seek regarding consents, etc.), in the future the parties should endeavor to comply with the requirements of Special Order 109.

III. Request for Revision of Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 72)

Plaintiffs request this court to extend the deadlines on the current discovery plan and scheduling order (Doc. # 61) for "at least sixty (60) days from the date Plaintiffs' (sic) actually receive the discovery requested." (Doc. # 72 at 7-8.) Plaintiffs do not mention the admonition the court set forth when approving the parties' August 2014 stipulation to extend the initial scheduling order, which read, "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS." (Doc. # 61 at 5; emphasis in the original.) Plaintiffs also do not address the required components of Local Rule 26-4 regarding motions seeking extensions of deadlines in a scheduling order, other than perhaps L.R. 26-4(d) regarding a proposed deadline for completing the remaining discovery. Defendants' opposition/counter motion does not address Plaintiff's request to again extend the discovery deadline.

This court will grant an extension this last time. However, the court cannot set a "deadline" on such a nebulous triggering date Plaintiffs propose, i.e., 60 days after Plaintiffs receive the discovery requested. Because of the pending discovery dispute (on both sides), the court will approve a new deadline for completion of discovery of approximately sixty days from the existing deadline (March 2, 2014) to May 1, 2015. There will be no extension of this deadline and the parties should conduct themselves accordingly.

The parties shall file a joint amended discovery plan and scheduling order no later than December 22, 2014, consistent with the May 1, 2015 discovery deadline with other related dates and deadlines in compliance with Local Rule 26-1(e).

IV. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court for Failing to Comply with Prior Discovery Order and for Sanctions and Other Appropriate Relief Including Plaintiffs’ Request for Extension of Time for the Discovery Plan and Scheduling ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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