United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [ECF NO.
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Curtis Brady Jr.'s Motion to
Extend the discovery deadline (ECF No. 34) and Defendants
Antonio Bryant, Joseph Faliszek, Stephen George, Morris
Guice, and Ronald Oliver's Response (ECF No. 36). For the
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is granted in
complaint against Defendants James Dzurenda, D.W. Neven,
Brian Williams, Morris Guice Jr., Antonio Bryant, R. Oliver,
Stephan George, Barron, Joseph Faliszek, the State of Nevada,
and the Nevada Department of Corrections was filed on October
18, 2018. (ECF No. 6). On March 25, 2019, this Court ordered
a discovery deadline of June 24, 2019 pursuant to LR 16-1(b).
(ECF No. 21 at 1). On May 29, 2019 Plaintiff mailed to the
Court this motion to extend the discovery deadline by 90
days. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff states needs more time to access
the prison's law library, where he faces scheduling
issues. (Id. at 3). In their response, Defendants
consent to an extension of time, but claim 90 days would be
excessive. (ECF No. 36 at 2). Defendants argue a 45 day
extension would be sufficient. (Id.).
LR 26-4, an extension of the discovery deadline will not be
allowed without a showing of good cause. See also
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16(b)(4) (“a schedule may be modified
only for good cause and with the judge's consent”).
Any motion or stipulation for extension of a discovery
deadline must include: (1) a statement specifying the
discovery completed by the parties as of the date of the
motion or stipulation; (2) a specific description of the
discovery that remains to be completed; (3) the reasons why
such remaining discovery was not completed within the time
limit of the existing discovery deadline; and (4) a proposed
schedule for the completion of all remaining discovery. LR
district court is given broad discretion in supervising the
pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). When
determining good cause, the Court “primarily considers
the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”
Id. at 609. “The scheduling order can be
modified if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence
of the party seeking the extension.” McKenzie v.
Walgreen Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8057, at *5-7 (D.
Nev. Jan. 18, 2013).
did not state what discovery, if any, has been completed by
either party as of May 29, 2019. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff
states he needs additional time to submit Admissions,
Interrogatories, and Document Requests, but he does not state
what information he wished to discover from these mechanisms
or what questions he wanted answered. (Id. at 3).
Plaintiff states he cannot not complete discovery “due
to the unavailability of law library slots” at his
prison. (Id.). Plaintiff did not submit a proposed
schedule for completion of all remaining discovery.
(Id.). Plaintiff is pursuing the case pro
se. (Id.). Plaintiff did file the motion to
extend before the original discovery deadline of June 24,
2019. (ECF No. 34). The Court finds that Plaintiff has been
diligent in attempting to access legal information using the
prison library. However, Plaintiff's motion lacks
specificity with respect to the requirements of LR 26-4(a),
(b), and (d). This Court does not find good cause to extend
the discovery deadline by 90 days based on Plaintiff's
Defendants Antonio Bryant, Joseph Faliszek, Stephen George,
Morris Guice, and Ronald Oliver have consented to an
extension of time. (ECF No. 36 at 2). They ask the Court only
grant Plaintiff 45 days instead of 90. (Id.).
Defendant's state that 90 days would be an
“excessive” extension, while 45 days would be
“sufficient.” (Id.). This Court
recognizes Plaintiff's need to access legal information
as a pro se litigant and accepts his access to this
information is limited by his confinement despite his
diligence. The Court finds good cause for an extension.
However, the Court agrees with Defendants that 45 days is
sufficient time for Plaintiff to resolve his scheduling
and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED
ORDERED that the discovery deadline be extended 45 days from
the current discovery deadline. Both parties shall complete
discovery by August 9, 2019.
to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to
orders and reports and recommendations issued by the
magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed
with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1,
3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may
determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure
to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also
held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified
time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the
objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District
Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order
of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United
Sch. Dist, 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
to LR IA 3-1, the Plaintiff must immediately file written
notification with the court of any change of address. The
notification must include proof of service upon each opposing
party of the party's attorney. ...