Mirae Asset Securities Co. Ltd. v. Ryze Renewables Holdings, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01492
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Mirae Asset Securities Co. Ltd., 5 Case No. 2:23-cv-01492-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 6 Order v. 7 [Docket No. 312] Ryze Renewables Holdings, LLC, 8 Defendant. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose 11 of permitting depositions of third party witnesses Huijun Yang and Hyun Joo Park. Docket No. 12 312. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion and declaration of counsel, Defendant’s response 13 and declaration of counsel, and Plaintiff’s reply. Docket Nos. 312, 313, 319, 320, 321, 323, 324. 14 The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 15 A request to extend deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a showing of 16 good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns on whether 17 the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. 18 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence obligation is 19 ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012). 20 “The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire period of 21 time already allowed.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177 (D. Nev. 22 2022). The Court considers whether relief from the scheduling order is sought based on the 23 development of matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule 24 was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may 25 also consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the movant was diligent in seeking 26 modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that such relief was warranted. Sharp 27 v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “[C]arelessness is not compatible 28 with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 1 “The party seeking modification of the scheduling order bears the burden of establishing 2 diligence.” Desio, 339 F.R.D. at 638 (citing Singer v. Las Vegas Athletic Clubs, 376 F. Supp. 3d 3 1062, 1077 (D. Nev. 2019)). When diligence has not been shown in support of an extension 4 request, “the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 5 When a request for relief from a case management deadline is made after that deadline has 6 already expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & 7 Trust Co. v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017) (addressing former Local Rule 26- 8 4); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable neglect analysis is guided by factors that include (1) 9 the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 10 on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. 11 Branch Banking, 871 F.3d at 765.1 A lack of diligence is sufficient reason standing alone to deny 12 a motion to reopen discovery. See, e.g., Cornwell, 439 F.3d at 1027. That lack of diligence is fatal 13 to a request to reopen discovery even if the movant indicates that the information it seeks is 14 important to its case. See id. (affirming denial of request to reopen discovery for lack of diligence 15 “even in the face of requested supplemental discovery that might have revealed highly probative 16 evidence”); see also Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Invs., 237 F.R.D. 395, 399 (N.D. Tex. 17 2006) (“Although [the movant] argued that it had a strong need for the documents, which appear 18 relevant, this factor has not generally been considered by courts, and the alleged importance of the 19 documents appears inconsistent with the delay in seeking the documents”). 20 The Court need not set forth the lengthy history regarding the parties’ discovery disputes 21 in this case; however, the Court has taken them into account along with the briefing of the instant 22 motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated both good cause and excusable neglect to 23 24

25 1 The Ninth Circuit has at times stated somewhat differently the factors for consideration in deciding whether to reopen discovery, including “1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the 26 request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the 27 foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.” City of 28 Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d. 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017). 1} support their request to reopen the discovery deadline for the sole purpose of conducting the remote 2|| depositions of these third-party witnesses. See Docket No. 312. 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.” Docket No. 312. The discovery 4|| deadline is reopened for the sole purpose of conducting the remote depositions of third-party witnesses Huiyjan Yang and Hyun Joo Park. These depositions must be completed no later than February 6, 2026. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: January 9, 2026 Ko.

10 Nancy Konpe agistrate Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27), ——__________ ? As the Court grants Plaintiffs request, it need not reach Plaintiff’s alternative request for 28]| trial preservation depositions of these third-party witnesses.