Hunt v. Safeco Insurance Company Of America

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJuly 25, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00434
StatusUnknown

This text of Hunt v. Safeco Insurance Company Of America (Hunt v. Safeco Insurance Company Of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunt v. Safeco Insurance Company Of America, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 ZACHRY HUNT, et al., 6 Case No.: 2:25-cv-00434-GMN-NJK Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 20] SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF 9 AMERICA, 10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines by 90 12 days. Docket No. 20. 13 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 15 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 16 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 17 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 18 Ariz. 2012). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the 19 entire period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 20 967 (N. D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E. D. Cal. 1999)). 21 That a request is jointly submitted “neither mandates allowance of the extension sought nor 22 exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief. Failure to provide such 23 showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case management deadlines.” 24 Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022) 25 Here, the parties have failed to demonstrate diligence. The Court issued the scheduling 26 order in this case on April 11, 2025. Docket No. 13. Nonetheless, the parties have conducted 27 little affirmative discovery. Docket No. 20 at 2. 28 As a one-time courtesy, the Court will allow a 60-day extension of the current deadlines. ] Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Docket No. 20. 3 Deadlines are RESET as follows: 4 e Initial expert: September 22, 2025 5 e Rebuttal expert: October 24, 2025 6 e Discovery cutoff: November 21, 2025 7 e Dispositive motions: December 22, 2025 8 e Joint proposed pretrial order: January 20, 2026, 30 days after resolution of 9 dispositive motions, or further order of the Court 10 Any future request to extend discovery deadlines must include a robust showing of 11} diligence. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: July 25, 2025 14 Snape NancyJ. Koppe 15 ‘United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
731 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. California, 2010)
Jackson v. Laureate, Inc.
186 F.R.D. 605 (E.D. California, 1999)
Morgal v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
284 F.R.D. 452 (D. Arizona, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunt v. Safeco Insurance Company Of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-safeco-insurance-company-of-america-nvd-2025.