Christopher Myers v. Cox Communications

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00904
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JEMMA E. DUNN Nevada Bar No. 16229 2 MATTHEW T. HALE Nevada Bar No. 16880 3 DAVID C. KIEBLER Nevada Bar No. 16724 4 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 730 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 777-0888 6 Facsimile: (702) 777-0801 JDunn@GGTrialLaw.com 7 MHale@GGTrialLaw.com DKiebler@GGTrialLaw.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 Christopher Myers

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 14 CHRISTOPHER MYERS, an individual, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00904-JAD-BNW

15 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 16 EXTEND DISCOVERY SCHEDULING v. ORDER DEADLINES 17 COX COMMUNICATIONS LAS VEGAS, (First Request) 18 INC., a Delaware Corporation,

19 Defendant. 20

25 Plaintiff Christopher Myers (“Plaintiff”), by and through his counsel of record, Greenberg 26 Gross LLP, and Defendant Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc. (“Defendant”), by and through its 27 counsel of record, Littler Mendelson, P.C., stipulate and agree to extend the unexpired discovery 11 A. Discovery Completed to Date. 22 To date, the parties have exchanged initial disclosures of documents and witnesses pursuant 33 to FRCP 26(a)(1). The parties have also exchanged and responded to written discovery, Plaintiff 44 having served Requests for Production on Defendant on September 26, 2025, and Defendant having 55 served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff on October 23, 2025. 66 Plaintiff served responses to written discovery on November 24, 2025. Defendant served responses 77 to written discovery on December 10, 2025. Plaintiff has noticed the deposition of Defendant’s 88 employees Chris Zucarro and Lakisha Moss for early January and the parties are currently 99 rescheduling those depositions to a mutually agreeable time. Plaintiff and Defendant have served 1100 supplemental disclosures. 1111 B. Discovery Which Still Needs to Occur. 1122 Plaintiff intends to take a FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition and the depositions of several other of 1133 Defendant’s employees. Defendant intends to take Plaintiff’s deposition. Further, the parties may 1144 exchange follow up written discovery and documents based on these depositions. Defendant 1155 reserves the right to notice and take additional depositions during the discovery period. 1166 C. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery. 1177 Discovery Cut-Off Date – The February 2, 2026, discovery cut-off date shall be extended 1188 ninety (90) days to Monday, May 4, 2026. 1199 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures (Experts) - The January 12, 2026, rebuttal expert 2200 disclosures deadline shall be extended ninety (90) days to Monday, April 13, 2026. 2211 Dispositive Motions – The March 4, 2026, dispositive motions deadline shall be extended 2222 to Wednesday, June 3, 2026, which is thirty (30) days after the discovery deadline. 2233 Pretrial Order – If no dispositive motions are filed, the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed 2244 thirty (30) days after the date set for the filing of the dispositive motions, which is Friday, July 3, 2255 2026. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be 2266 suspended until thirty (30) days after the decision on the dipositive motions or by further order of 2277 the Court. 11 D. Good Cause Supports the Request to Extend the Deadlines as Set Forth Herein. 22 When a stipulation requires the modification of the scheduling order, the parties must first 33 satisfy the “good cause” standard established by Rule 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 44 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be 55 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”). The good cause inquiry is focused on 66 the movant’s reasons for seeking to modify the scheduling order and primarily considers the 77 movant’s diligence. In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 88 2013). The key determination is whether the subject deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the 99 diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court considers whether 1100 relief from the scheduling order is sought based on the development of matters that could not have 1111 been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 1122 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may also consider other pertinent circumstances, including 1133 whether the movant was diligent in seeking modification of the scheduling order once it became 1144 apparent that the movant required relief from the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 1155 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “The diligence obligation is ongoing” such that parties must 1166 “diligently attempt to adhere to [the deadlines in the scheduling order] throughout the subsequent 1177 course of the litigation.” Id. 1188 Good cause supports the parties’ request to extend the Discovery Cut-Off, Expert Rebuttal 1199 Disclosures, Dispositive Motions, and Pretrial Order Deadlines. The parties are actively scheduling 2200 depositions and may exchange additional written discovery. The parties further engaged in 2211 substantial litigation at the pleading stage, which required Plaintiff to file several amended 2222 complaints after the Court dismissed some of Plaintiff’s claims. As such, the scope of the parties’ 2233 dispute has evolved throughout the early portion of the case. 2244 The Parties submit that these circumstances satisfy the required good cause in extending the 2255 deadlines referenced above. 2266 / / / 2277 1 The Parties hereby stipulate to the aforementioned. 2 DATED 31 December 20235. 4 /s/ David C. Kiebler /s/ Taylor A. Buono 5 || David C. Kiebler, Esq. Taylor A. Buono, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 16724 Nevada Bar No. 15513 6|| GREENBERG GROSS LLP LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 730 8474 Rozita Lee Avenue Suite 200 7{| Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Las Vegas, NV 89113-4770 dkiebler@ ggtriallaw.com tbuono @littler.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Myers Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc. 10 11 ORDER 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 3 14 : 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 DATED: January 7, 2026 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-