Karen Odale v. Christopher D. Day, et al.

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 KAREN ODALE, Case No. 2:25-cv-01984-APG-NJK 6 Plaintiff, Order 7 v. [Docket No. 25] 8 CHRISTOPHER D. DAY, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend case management deadlines 11 by 60 days. Docket No. 25. 12 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 13 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 14 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 15 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 16 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 17 Ariz. 2012). “The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 18 period of time already allowed.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177 19 (D. Nev. 2022). The Court considers whether relief from the scheduling order is sought based on 20 the development of matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule 21 was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may 22 also consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the movant was diligent in seeking 23 modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that the movant required relief from 24 the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). 25 “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of 26 relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. When diligence has not been shown in support of an extension 27 28 request, “the inquiry should end.” Jd.' Although the Court may consider the joint nature of a stipulation to extend, “[t]hat a request is made jointly neither mandates allowance of the extension 3], sought nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief.” Williams, 627 F. Supp. 3d at 1178. 5 The parties submit that an extension of case management deadlines is warranted because 6] counsel for the parties are busy with other matters. See Docket No. 25 at 2-3. However, counsel’s 7|| busy schedule does not establish good cause for an extension. Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 8|| 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1179 (D. Nev. 2022). “[A]ttesting that an attorney has overloaded his work obligations such that he cannot comply with established deadlines is not only an insufficient basis 10] to modify case management deadlines, it is cause for alarm.” Jd. 11 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the instant stipulation. Docket No. 12} 25. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 24, 2026 fe. Nancy J. Koppe, * 16 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26) ———______ ' The Ninth Circuit has emphasized the importance of scheduling orders, see Desio v. State 27| Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 339 F.R.D. 632, 641 (D. Nev. 2011) (collecting cases), and has stated bluntly that Rule 16 scheduling orders must “be taken seriously,” Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 28} 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994).