Morton v. Clark County Detention Center

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Paris Morton, Case No. 2:23-cv-00818-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 dba Pigeonly; Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 9 Department,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Paris Morton’s motion to extend the discovery 13 deadlines. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff filed her motion on May 22, 2025, before the June 5, 2025, 14 discovery deadline passed. Plaintiff asserts that she is still learning how to litigate her case and 15 how to serve discovery requests and so needs additional time. Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan 16 Police Department (“LVMPD”) opposes the motion, pointing out that the Court entered its first 17 scheduling order in November of 2024, and so, Plaintiff had since then to learn about and serve 18 her discovery requests, but did not. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 19 Defendant has the more compelling argument. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 16(b)’s good cause standard, the Court considers the diligence of the party seeking the 21 amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The 22 district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 23 diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s 24 notes (1983 amendment)). Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence because, although she 25 asserts that she has been learning how to serve discovery, she has not explained why she is only 26 now conducting this research when discovery has been open since November of 2024. This is 27 especially true because LVMPD points out that it has served discovery requests on Plaintiff but 1 Plaintiff has not made similar efforts. The Court will therefore deny her motion without 2 prejudice, meaning that she may file a renewed motion if she can demonstrate diligence. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 30) is 5 denied without prejudice. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 7 a copy of this order. 8 9 DATED: September 5, 2025 10 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27