Opinion
2:22-cv-00218-APG-NJK
01-03-2023
MITCHELL KEITH GOODRUM, Plaintiff(s), v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER
[Docket Nos. 27, 29, 31, 32]
NANCY J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 18, 2022, the Court entered a scheduling order establishing a discovery cutoff of January 17, 2023. Docket No. 25. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay the case for 90 days. Docket No. 27. Defendants filed a response. Docket No. 28. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion to stay the case for 90 days. Docket No. 29. Defendants filed a response. Docket No. 30. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend time by 90 days. Docket No. 31. Defendants did not file a response. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to reply to Defendants' earlier responsive brief. Docket No. 32. Defendants did not file a response.
All of the pending motion practice arises out of a dispute being addressed in a different case regarding medical records. See Docket No. 30 at 2-3 (discussing Goodrum v. Nevada, No. 3:20-cv-00549-ART-CLB). Plaintiff alleges that these medical records have gone missing and that he needs them to litigate this case. See Docket No. 29 at 1. The Court does not find these circumstances to constitute a sufficient basis to stay this case, but that they do constitute good cause for an extension of the existing case management deadlines. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend time by 90 days (Docket No. 31). The case management deadlines are hereby RESET as follows:
• Amend pleadings/ add parties: March 20, 2023
• Discovery cutoff: April 19, 2023
• Discovery motions: May 3, 2023
• Dispositive motions: May 19, 2023
• Joint proposed pretrial order: June 19, 2023, or 30 days after resolution of motions for summary judgment
In light of the above, the motion to stay (Docket No. 27), the second motion to stay (Docket No. 29), and the motion for leave to file a reply (Docket No. 32) are all DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.