United States District Court, D. Nevada, Southern Division
STEPHEN K. CHRISTIANSEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW Stephen K.
Christiansen Attorney for Plaintiff
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DATES (THIRD
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, plaintiff Elma Henderson
moves the Court for a 90-day extension of current deadlines
set forth in the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling
Order (ECF No. 80) as extended by the Order of October 17,
2017 (ECF No. 202). This is the third such request, the Court
having previously granted two extensions of 120 days and 90
days, respectively (ECF Nos. 154 & 202). The grounds are
that the pleadings are not yet closed, key motions are
pending, the defendant is not cooperating in discovery, and
discovery is therefore just underway and subject to
threshold motions following the filing of the original
complaint in August 2016, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in January 2017 clarifying allegations (for the
defendants' benefit) and adding parties. Following motion
practice directed to the amended complaint, the Court granted
leave to the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint
(ECF No. 153), which she did on May 19, 2017 (ECF No. 155).
The defendants filed a series of responsive motions, most of
which the Court struck and which the defendants then failed
to re-file within the time allowed by the Court. Ancillary
motions related to the defendants' ability to file out of
time or to seek leave to set aside defaults are now pending
as a result. (ECF Nos. 184-85.) Defendant T.R. Hughes'
motion to dismiss is fully briefed and ready for a decision,
with an attendant request by the plaintiff for oral argument.
(ECF No. 168.) Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion
seeking leave to effectuate alternative service on two
remaining defendants (ECF No. 170), which the Court granted
with instructions to submit a proposed publication order (ECF
No. 202). That proposed order has now been submitted and
awaits entry by the Court. (ECF No. 206.)
plaintiff served comprehensive written discovery requests on
Mr. Hughes, which were due in mid-September 2017, via his
email address of record with the Court. He did not timely
respond. Instead, he claimed not to have received the
requests. Plaintiffs counsel gave him an additional 30 days
to respond. His responses at that time did not comply with
the Court's rules, consisted largely of unmeritorious
objections to the merits of the case, and failed to provide
relevant information or any documents. Following a
meet-and-confer session with plaintiffs counsel, Mr. Hughes
promised to remedy the numerous deficiencies by November 13,
2017. That date came and went without compliance, and he has
declined to respond to follow-up communications regarding the
same. Plaintiff will therefore be required to seek the
Court's assistance in obtaining basic discovery in this
case, to be addressed in a forthcoming motion to compel.
issue has not yet been fully joined in the case by all
parties, and because discovery is weighed down by the
principal defendant's obstructive failure to cooperate,
the current timeline is unworkable. Meanwhile, expert
disclosures are due at the end of this month, with the
plaintiff needing additional factual information from
discovery to be able to identify and disclose appropriate
to Local Rule 26-4, plaintiff provides the following
information relative to the status of discovery and the
(a) A statement specifying the discovery completed: To date,
those parties who have answered the complaint and not
defaulted have exchanged Initial Disclosures in accordance
with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) and this Court's Scheduling
Order as amended, and the plaintiff has served written
discovery and taken the deposition of defendant Cheryl Hughes
and a short deposition of a third party.
(b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to
be completed: The parties still need to complete formal
discovery, to include interrogatories, requests for
production of documents, requests for admission, and
depositions. One written set of discovery directed to T.R.
Hughes has been served but has not received a proper response
despite multiple extensions. All other defendants are in
default or are waiting to be served pursuant to entry of the
pending order for alternative service via publication. (ECF
No. 206.) Other discovery will be dependent on which
defendants are allowed to appear in this case moving forward.
(c) The reason why the deadline was not satisfied or the
remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits
set by the discovery plan: The commencement of discovery was
originally continued to allow all parties to be fully in the
case. The case involves claims of alter ego and joint
liability between defendant T.R. Hughes and his companies.
The interrelatedness of the companies calls for discovery of
all relevant companies simultaneously. Mr. Hughes represents
that he is the person with information regarding the same,
yet he has refused to provide that information in discovery.
A motion to compel will be required. Issue should be fully
joined to identify the proper scope and subjects of
discovery, and time will be needed to address the motion to
compel and to obtain appropriate discovery thereafter.
Plaintiff has proceeded with such discovery as she can under
the circumstances while attempting to move the case forward
in light of the defendants' numerous procedural motions
and obstructionist approach to discovery.
(d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining
discovery: For the reasons stated above, plaintiff requests
that the current amended scheduling order (ECF No. 202) be
amended to reflect the following deadlines, which represent a
90-day extension from the current deadlines:
(1) Expert disclosures: February 26, 2018.
(2) Rebuttal expert disclosures: March ...