Amerson v. Las Vegas College

Opinion

3 * * *

4 GENAY L. AMERSON, an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

EDUCATION CORPORATION, a domestic 8 corporation; PETER MIKHAIL, PRESIDENT OF MIKHAIL EDUCATION 9 CORPORATION; DOES 1 through 10; ROE Entities 11 through 20, inclusive jointly and 10 severally,

11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery (ECF No. 57). The 14 Court considered the Motion and Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 58). 15 Defendants seek a 90 day extension of deadlines to complete written and oral discovery 16 (depositions) that may help narrow issues before this matter potentially goes to trial. Defendants 17 believe Plaintiff agreed to this extension and that she has now rescinded her agreement. Plaintiff’s 18 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion focuses on the substance of this case rather than on whether an 19 extension of discovery is appropriate. The Court is not making any decision on the substance of the 20 issues presented, but only on whether discovery is extended. 21 The Court has broad discretion when supervising the pretrial phase of cases on its docket. 22 Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). This includes the Court’s 23 authority to manage discovery deadlines. Id. In this case, Defendants must demonstrate good cause 24 for their request to extend discovery. United Stated District Court for the District of Nevada Local 25 Rule (“LR”) 26-3. Diligence is the hallmark of good cause. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 26 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, “when leave to amend is sought after the amendment 27 deadline in the court’s scheduling order has expired, the movant must also show … excusable neglect 1 01579-JAD, 2015 WL 4603485, at *1 citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). See also LR 26-3. Excusable 2 neglect is a balancing test based on four parameters including (1) prejudice to the opposing party, 3 (2) the length of delay and potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for delay and 4 whether the delay was within the movant’s control, and (4) whether the moving party is acting in 5 good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs., Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., Ltd., P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) 6 Defendants demonstrate their diligence in conducting discovery including production of 7 documents, responding to Requests for Admission and Interrogatories, and participating in 8 Plaintiff’s repeated motion practice regarding her document demand propounded on the Office for 9 Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. Plaintiff has also moved to amend her complaint 10 to which Defendants responded, and Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. 11 Defendants identify the discovery conducted to date, what remains to be conducted, and 12 explains no depositions have occurred. Plaintiff has taken the position that Defendants have 13 admitted all material facts rendering further discovery unnecessary. Plaintiff’s position appears 14 erroneous to the Court. 15 With respect to excusable neglect, the Court finds no evidence that Defendants have acted in 16 bad faith. Defendants have not engaged in any act that suggests an improper purpose or that they 17 have otherwise engaged in conduct demonstrating abuse of the litigation process. The reasons for 18 delay in seeking the amendment was a combination of Plaintiff’s motion practice and dependence 19 on agreement to extend discovery that did not, in the end, materialize. While the case commenced 20 in August 2024, Defendants have not caused delay in proceedings. See docket generally. The 21 additional 90 days of discovery will not prejudice Plaintiff as she will have the same opportunity as 22 Defendants to conduct depositions (if she so chooses) and engage in additional factfinding as she 23 finds appropriate. The Court further finds the case will benefit from full discovery that will allow 24 consideration of all claims on their merits. Finally, no pretrial order was submitted by the parties 25 and, hence, no trial is set in this matter. Plaintiff did file a Motion for Summary Judgment before 26 the close of discovery (ECF Nos. 53 compare 41). It is noteworthy that Defendants’ Motion to 27 Dismiss is also pending. ECF No. 45. 1 In sum, after considering all arguments raised, the history of this case with which the Court 2 is familiar, and the breadth of discretion granted to the undersigned, the Court finds the 90 days 3 extension of deadlines is appropriately granted. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979) (“The 4 [Supreme] Court has more than once declared that the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded 5 a broad and liberal treatment to effect their purpose of adequately informing the litigants in civil 6 trials.”); Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Broad discretion is vested in the 7 trial court to permit or deny discovery”); Hubbard v. Thompson, Case No. 2:11-cv-1568-JAM-AC- 8 P, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91150, at **6-7 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2013) (referencing the Court’s “broad 9 discretion to manage discovery”). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ODERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery (ECF 11 No. 57) is GRANTED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 13 1. The new discovery cut off date is June 29, 2025. 14 2. The deadline for amendments has passed and is not reopened by this Order. 15 3. Initial experts, if any, must be disclosed no later than April 30, 2025. Disclosure of 16 rebuttal experts must be made no later than May 30, 2025. 17 4. The deadline by which dispositive motions must be filed is July 29, 2025. 18 5. The deadline for filing the proposed joint pretrial order is August 28, 2025. In the 19 event that one or more dispositive motion is pending on this date, the date for filing the proposed 20 joint pretrial is automatically vacated and extended to 30 days after all dispositive motions are 21 addressed through an order of the Court. 22 Dated this 31st day of March, 2025.

24 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27