Carbajal-Aguilar v. Loya Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 MONICA CARBAJAL-AGUILAR, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02115-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. [Docket No. 17] 10 LOYA INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to continue the discovery to an unspecified date 13 to take Plaintiffs’ depositions. Docket No. 17. 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). “The diligence 18 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 19 Ariz. 2012). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 20 period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 967 21 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). 22 The instant stipulation does not meet the governing standard. It indicates that Plaintiff 23 Carbajal-Aguilar’s deposition has been delayed because she is unavailable to be deposed before 24 May 12, 2025. Docket No. 17 at 2. No explanation is provided, however, as to the details of 25 scheduling this deposition, including why it could not have been taken in the preceding months 26 that discovery has been open. The stipulation also indicates that Plaintiff Paramo’s deposition 27 cannot be taken before the discovery cutoff because of the “unforeseen” circumstance that he is 28 incarcerated at Southern Desert Correctional Center. Id. Per the state website, however, Plaintiff 1} Paramo has been incarcerated for more than a year, so it is not clear why that circumstance was not foreseen. Lastly, but importantly, the stipulation provides no actual date by which these 3] depositions will be taken. But see, e.g., Local Rule 26-3(d). Although the current request is 4] deficient, the Court will allow a short extension in the interest of the case being decided on its merits and as a one-time courtesy to the parties. 6 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 7|| Discovery will close on May 12, 2025, with the sole exceptions that the depositions of Plaintiffs must be taken by May 23, 2025. All other case management deadlines remain unchanged, including that dispositive motions must be filed by June 11, 2025. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 9, 2025 12 7A, < S a a Nancy J. Ko; 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28