1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 MARK HARTER, Case No. 2:19-cv-01330-JCM-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, duly authorized 8 to conduct business in the State of Nevada; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE 9 CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Mark Harter’s Motion to Extend the Deadline to Submit 13 an Expert Rebuttal Report Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 16(b), and the Close of Discovery. ECF No. 36. 14 The Court has considered the Motion, Defendant’s Opposition (ECF No. 38), and Plaintiff’s Reply 15 (ECF No. 39). 16 In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks a 30 day extension to disclose a rebuttal expert report that 17 responds to Defendant’s expert and supplemental expert reports disclosed on June 25, 2020 and 18 August 27, 2020, respectively. The rebuttal expert report was technically due September 28, 2020; 19 however, the individual Plaintiff selected to rebut Defendant’s expert, Dr. Katherine Travnicek, one 20 of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, had conflicts that precluded her from completing an expert report 21 until mid-October. Plaintiff timely contacted Defendant seeking a short extension to disclose his 22 rebuttal expert report. Defendant refused the extension request providing no reason for its decision. 23 Plaintiff now seeks the assistance of the Court to obtain this extension. 24 The Court notes that Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion does not argue prejudice, 25 but instead cites a Nevada state court case for the proposition that Plaintiff did not establish good 26 cause. Decisions from the Nevada Supreme Court are not controlling on an issue well defined under 27 federal law. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff should not be allowed the extension request because 1 |} argument might have been persuasive had Plaintiff not sought an extension to disclose a rebutt 2 || expert within the time allowed under the pre-existing Scheduling Order. 3 This Court has broad discretion to control the course of discovery in cases that come befo 4 || it. Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.,

(9th Cir. 2014) Gnternal citatic 5 |} omitted). Plaintiff brought his Motion seeking an extension in a timely manner and for good cau 6 || as clearly established therein. ECF No. 36. The Court therefore grants Plaintiffs request for a 7 || day extension to issue his rebuttal expert report. If the report did not issue in October, it shall iss1 8 || within 30 days of the date of this Order. 9 With respect to Plaintiff's request to extend discovery deadlines, the Court reviews 10 || Plaintiff's pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41), and Defendant’s no 11 || opposition thereto (ECF No. 42) to ensure granting an extension would not create the untenab 12 || situation in which a dispositive motion is pending, yet discovery continues on the issues present 13 || in that motion. The pending Motion for Summary Judgment pertains only to liability. Thu 14 || additional discovery as to damages will have no impact on the outcome of that Motion. The Cot 15 || also recognizes that Defendant did not object to Plaintiff's discovery extension request. Given tl 16 || absence of objection, the Court grants this request. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Mark Harter’s Motion to Extend tl 18 || Deadline to Submit an Expert Rebuttal Report Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 16(b), and the Close | 19 || Discovery (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff has not already done so, he shall make h 21 || rebuttal expert disclosure within 30 days of the date of this Order. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) court days of the date of this Order, tl 23 || parties shall submit a brief status report with a proposed schedule for extension of discove 24 || pertaining to damages. 25 Dated this 21st day of December, 2020 26 27 . ELAYNAY. YOU H 28 AYN, H3OU aby ATE JUDGE