Alexander v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 LATIA ALEXANDER, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00074-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 35] 9 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to continue discovery deadlines by 60 13 days.1 Docket No. 35. 14 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 15 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 16 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 17 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).2 Here, there has been 18 no showing of diligence. The parties’ completed discovery recitation is nearly identical to the 19 recitation of completed discovery they submitted on November 19, 2024. See Docket No. 35 at 20 2; see also Docket No. 33 at 2. 21 Further, a request to extend case management deadlines must provide a “statement 22 specifying the discovery completed.” Local Rule 26-3. To allow the Court to make a proper 23 determination of whether the parties have been diligent throughout the discovery period, this 24

25 1 The parties state that they are requesting an extension of 90 days. Docket No. 35 at 1. The actual dates they request, however, constitute an extension of 60 days. Id. at 3. 26 2 That a request is jointly submitted “neither mandates allowance of the extension sought 27 nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief. Failure to provide such showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case management 28 deadlines.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022). statement must include the dates on which all discovery occurred. Such information is absent 2|| here.? See Docket No. 35 at 2. 3 Further, the stipulation fails to show that any relief from the case management deadlines is warranted. The stipulation seeks relief based on Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Department’s 5], Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Docket No. 35 at 3. The parties submit that the deposition cannot take 6], place until the end of February and that the deposition transcript will be required to file dispositive 7| motions. /d. However, the stipulation fails to explain why that circumstance justifies a two- 8|| month extension of deadlines. Such an extension, even if good cause did exist, appears excessive 9] on its face in relation to the circumstance identified. 10 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is DENIED. Docket No. 35. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 7, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe, 14 United Statés-Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 > Counsel is well aware of this requirement. See Docket No. 34 at 1.