Michele Morse v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01485
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8

9 MICHELE MORSE, Case No. 2:25-cv-01485-ART-NJK 10 Plaintiff, Order 11 v. [Docket No. 16] 12 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, 13 Defendant. 14 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend case management deadlines. Docket 15 No. 16. 16 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 17 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 18 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 19 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 20 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 21 Ariz. 2012). “The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 22 period of time already allowed.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177 23 (D. Nev. 2022). The Court considers whether relief from the scheduling order is sought based on 24 the development of matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule 25 was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may 26 also consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the movant was diligent in seeking 27 modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that the movant required relief from 28 the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). 1 “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of 2 relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. When diligence has not been shown in support of an extension 3 request, “the inquiry should end.” Id.1 Although the Court may consider the joint nature of a 4 stipulation to extend, “[t]hat a request is made jointly neither mandates allowance of the extension 5 sought nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief.” Williams, 6 627 F. Supp. 3d at 1178. 7 The instant stipulation is the parties’ first request for an extension of case management 8 deadlines. Docket No. 16. The parties request a 90-day extension. Id. The scheduling order in 9 this matter was entered on October 14, 2025, see Docket No. 15, and the parties have not 10 demonstrated diligence in conducting discovery through this period. See Docket No. 16 at 3-4. 11 Contrary to their submission that they “have been diligently moving discovery forward,” the 12 parties have conducted almost no affirmative discovery to date. See Docket No. 16 at 3-4. Further, 13 the parties submit that a 90-day extension is needed to obtain outstanding medical records, retain 14 experts, schedule depositions, and discuss possible settlement. See id. at 3-5. However, these 15 reasons are insufficient, without more, to establish good cause for the lengthy extension requested. 16 See Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1179-82 (D. Nev. 2022)). 17 Nonetheless, in an effort to resolve this case on its merits, and as a one-time courtesy to 18 the parties, the Court will afford the parties a 30-day extension of the subject deadlines. 19 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ stipulation. Docket 20 No. 16. Case management deadlines are RESET as follows: 21 • Initial expert disclosures: January 12, 2026 22 • Rebuttal expert disclosures: February 11, 2026 23 • Discovery cutoff: March 9, 2026 24 • Dispositive motions: April 10, 2026 25 26 1 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). ] e Joint proposed pretrial order: May 11, 2026, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive 2 motions 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: December 9, 2025 Ko.

6 Unite □ istrate Judge

8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28