Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 LINKSMART WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, 9 LLC, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK

10 Plaintiff(s), Order 11 v. [Docket Nos. 162, 178]

12 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, et al., 13 Defendant(s). 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery deadlines. Docket No. 16 178.1 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ response, and Plaintiff’s reply. 17 Docket Nos. 178, 182, 181. Plaintiff requests a three-month extension of the discovery cutoff date. 18 Docket No. 178. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion and ask the Court not to extend the 19 currently set discovery cutoff date. Docket No. 182. The motion is properly decided without a 20 hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 21 I. ANALYSIS 22 A motion to extend deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order must be supported by a 23 showing of “good cause” for the extension. Local Rule 26-4; see also Johnson v. Mammoth 24 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608–09 (9th Cir. 1992).2 The “good cause” inquiry focuses 25

26 1 The motion at Docket No. 162 is the same motion as the one refiled at Docket No. 178. The Court therefore DENIES the motion at Docket No. 162 as moot. 27 2 The “good cause” standard in Local Rule 26-4 is the same as the standard governing 28 modification of the scheduling order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). 1} mostly on the movant’s diligence. Coleman vy. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th 2|| Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met 3] despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Although 4! prejudice to the opposing party may also be considered, when the movant “fail[s] to show diligence, ‘the inquiry should end.’” Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1295 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 6], 609). The Court has broad discretion in supervising pretrial litigation. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Having assessed the outstanding discovery items and considered the pleadings in connection with Plaintiff's motion, the Court finds that good cause exists for granting Plaintiff's 10] request for a three-month extension. The Court makes this finding based on the events that have 11] transpired since the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’ s motion to compel. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to extend discovery deadlines is GRANTED. Docket No. 13] 178. The Court SETS the following deadlines: 14 e Fact discovery cutoff: December 8, 2020 15 e Opening expert reports: January 7, 2021 16 e Rebuttal expert reports: February 1, 2021 17 e Expert discovery cutoff: March 5, 2021 18 e Dispositive and Daubert motions: April 8, 2021 19 e Responses to dispositive and Daubert motions: April 29, 2021 20 e Replies to dispositive and Daubert motions: May 13, 2021 21|| The Court issues this order mindful of the imperative that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be 22] “construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and 23|| inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Thus, NO 24| FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 8, 2020 27 fo Nanc TKuppe 28 United States, Magistrate Judge