Lopez v. The State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01161
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 BONNIE LOPEZ et al., 6 Case No.: 2:21-cv-01161-ART-NJK Plaintiffs, 7 ORDER v. 8 [Docket No. 51] THE STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. NEVADA 9 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is Nurse Defendants’ motion to extend discovery for the limited 12 purpose of taking the deposition of Stan Smith, Ph.D. Docket No. 51. The Court has considered 13 Nurse Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs’ response, and Nurse Defendants’ reply. Docket Nos. 51, 14 53, 57. 15 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 16 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 17 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 18 seeking the extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 This showing of diligence is measured by the movant’s conduct during the entirety of the period 20 of time already allowed. CC.Mexicano.US, LLC v. Aero II Aviation, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21 169110, at *11-12 (D. Nev. Dec. 15, 2015). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the 22 party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the 23 inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, 24 the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal citation omitted). All requests for 25 extension must be supported by a statement specifying the discovery completed, a specific 26 description of the discovery that remains to be completed, the reasons why the deadline was not 27 satisfied within the time limits set by the Court, and a proposed schedule for completing all 28 remaining discovery. Local Rule 26-3. 1 Here, Nurse Defendants submit that they noticed Dr. Smith’s deposition for January 5, 2 2023, the one date in January on which he said he was available. Docket No. 51 at 4-5. On January 3 4, 2023, the day before the deposition, counsel for Nurse Defendants learned that he was required 4 to participate, as a U.S. Navy JAG Corps. Reserve officer, in a military funeral for a deceased 5 veteran. Id. at 5. Counsel promptly notified Plaintiffs’ counsel and was advised that Dr. Smith’s 6 next available date was on February 2, 2023, nearly three weeks after the expiration of the 7 discovery deadline. Id. Nurse Defendants now ask the Court to extend the discovery deadline for 8 the sole purpose of taking Dr. Smith’s deposition on February 2, 2023, for a total of three hours, 9 as a result of counsel’s unavoidable conflict, the production of a supplemental report on December 10 30, 2022, the production of Dr. Smith’s job file, and the anticipation of an economics expert’s 11 supplemental report. Id. at 5-6. 12 Plaintiffs oppose the request because, inter alia, the Court granted six prior requests to 13 extend discovery, Dr. Smith’s report was disclosed in October 2022, his supplemental report was 14 disclosed on December 30, 2022, and no request was made to depose him until December 21, 15 2022, less than 30 days before the close of discovery. Docket No. 53 at 3. Plaintiffs further submit 16 that, though Nurse Defendants’ counsel was unavailable on January 5, 2023 due to his military 17 duty, other counsel could have deposed Dr. Smith, but chose instead to vacate the deposition. Id. 18 at 7. 19 In reply, Nurse Defendants submit that the sheer amount of discovery conducted in this 20 case demonstrates diligence. Docket No. 57 at 2-7. Further, Nurse Defendants submit that they 21 wanted to conduct affirmative discovery prior to conducting depositions and that, since they are 22 the parties who noticed Dr. Smith’s deposition and their attorney spent time preparing for the 23 deposition, it was not tenable for other counsel to step in when their counsel became unavailable. 24 Id. at 9. Finally, Nurse Defendants note that, since Dr. Smith is no longer available on February 25 2, 2023, they seek to depose him on February 21 or 24, 2023, which are dates that all necessary 26 parties are available. 27 The Court finds that good cause exists for the extension request and, therefore, Nurse 28 Defendants’ motion to extend is GRANTED. Docket No. 51. The discovery deadline in this case 1} is extended until February 24, 2023, for the sole purpose of taking a three-hour deposition of Stan Smith, Ph.D. on either that date or on a date prior. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: January 27, 2023.

6 UNITED'S RO NEM AGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28