Hagerman v. Cornutt ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Mark Hagerman, Case No. 2:23-cv-00491-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Cornutt, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference (ECF No. 40) and 12 motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 41). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement 13 conference only “if Hagerman is unwilling to temper his fairly high expectations.” (ECF No. 50). 14 Plaintiff’s reply indicates that he is willing to do so. (ECF No. 51). The Court thus grants 15 Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference. The Court will issue a separate order scheduling 16 this settlement conference. 17 Plaintiff moves to reopen the discovery deadline, which closed on May 1, 2024, and 18 extend discovery until August 28, 2024. (ECF No. 41). Plaintiff explains that he has been living 19 in administrative segregation, hindering his access to the law library. (Id.). Plaintiff adds that his 20 cell has been searched, after which search certain of his legal property was missing. (Id.). 21 Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s reasons are vague and that 22 reopening discovery will prejudice them because they have already filed their motion for 23 summary judgment. (ECF No. 50). They assert that Plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking 24 discovery and argue that reopening discovery at this juncture could require them to supplement 25 their summary judgment motion. (Id.). Plaintiff reiterates his arguments in reply and adds that he 26 was unable to conduct discovery because he was healing from stab wounds and a hand injury that 27 made it difficult for him to write. (Id.). 1 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated diligence and excusable neglect to 2 reopen discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see LR 26-3. The district court may modify the 3 pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 4 extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment). “Although the 5 existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional 6 reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 7 modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson v. Mammoth 8 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff has 9 explained that he could not meet the discovery deadline because of his injuries, his lost or 10 misplaced property, and his incarceration in administrative segregation. While Defendant 11 correctly points out that some of Plaintiff’s explanations are vague and while Plaintiff does not 12 specifically identify the discovery he wishes to seek, the Court must liberally construe Plaintiff’s 13 motion. Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2016). Liberally construing his 14 motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect for missing the deadline 15 given his injuries and recovery. The Court also finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated diligence 16 through his previous attempt to extend the deadline, which although unsuccessful, Plaintiff filed 17 before the close of discovery. (ECF No. 35). The Court thus grants Plaintiff’s motion to extend 18 discovery deadlines. 19 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to request a settlement 21 conference (ECF No. 40) is granted. The Court will issue a separate order scheduling this 22 settlement conference. 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to extend time (ECF No. 41) is 2 || granted. The following deadlines shall govern discovery: 3 Discovery cutoff: August 29, 2024 4 Discovery motions: September 12, 2024 5 Dispositive motions: September 30, 2024 6 Pretrial order: October 30, 2024 7 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 9 || acopy of this order. 10 1] DATED: July 19, 2024 □ 12 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 4 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28