1 TGYRSIFOFNIT &H HM. EHNADYEESS L LP 2 Nevada Bar No. 7374 TYRUS COBB 3 Nevada Bar No. 8031 Email(s): ghayes@tysonmendes.com 4 tcobb@tysonmendes.com 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 5 Henderson, NV 89052 Telephone: (702) 724-2648 6 Facsimile: (702) 410-7684 Attorneys for Defendant Walmart, Inc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9
10 CHARMAINE GOODMAN MURPHY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01765-CDS-MDC individually, 11 MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO Plaintiff, FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 12 v. 13 WALMART, INC., a Foreign Corporation; and 14 DOES 1 through 20; inclusive,
15 Defendants.
16 17 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b) and 26-3. Defendant WALMART, INC., by and through 18 counsel, hereby moves this Court for an Order extending the deadline for filing dispositive 19 motions. This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 20 26-4, and is based upon the following: 21 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 22 1. The parties have conducted the FRCP 26.1 Early Case Conference. 23 2. Defendant produced its Lists of Witnesses and Documents on December 5, 2024. 24 3. Plaintiff produced her Lists of Witnesses and Documents on August 20, 2024, 25 4. Defendant propounded its First Set of Interrogatories (25 Interrogatories), Requests 26 for Production of Documents (32 Requests), and Requests for Admissions (26 Requests) to 27 Plaintiff on December 30, 2024. 28 1 5. Plaintiff served her responses to First Set of Interrogatories (25 Interrogatories), 2 Requests for Production of Documents (32 Requests), and Requests for Admissions (26 Requests) 3 to Plaintiff on February 12, 2025. 4 6. Plaintiff served her First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant 5 (19 total) and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant (20 total) on March 12, 2025. 6 7. Defendant served its Designation of Initial Experts on March 20, 2025. 7 8. Plaintiff served her Designation of Initial Experts on March 20, 2025. 8 9. Rule 35 Examination of Plaintiff. 9 10. Deposition of Plaintiff. 10 11. Defendant served its First Supplement to List of Witnesses and Exhibits on April 11 25, 2025. 12 12. Defendant served its responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for 13 Production of Documents on April 28, 2025. 14 13. Defendant served its Designation of Rebuttal Expert on May 6, 2025. 15 14. Deposition of Defendant Walmart, Inc.’s 30(b)(6) witness. 16 15. Deposition of Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. William S. Muir, MD. 17 16. Defendant served its Second Supplement to List of Witnesses and Exhibits on June 18 26, 2025. 19 17. Defendant served its Supplemental Answers to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories on 20 June 26, 2025. 21 18. Plaintiff served her First Supplement to List of Witnesses and Exhibits on July 14, 22 2025. 23 19. Defendant requested that Plaintiff’s counsel agree to a stipulation to extend time by 24 two weeks in which to file dispositive motions complete with a draft stipulation emailed on August 25 14, 2025, by handling attorney Nick Psyk, which was declined by Plaintiff’s counsel. By early 26 afternoon of that day, the handling attorney had left the firm without notice to the supervising 27 attorney that Plaintiff did not agree to the stipulation and that the motion had not yet been filed. 28 20. On August 18, 2025, the supervising attorney on the file discovered the missed 1 deadline and immediately emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to see if she would agree to stipulate to 2 allowing Defendant additional time up and until September 5, 2025 to file a dispositive motion 3 subject to court approval. She declined and indicated she would oppose Plaintiff’s motion to 4 extend. Defendant’s counsel also offered to stipulate to allow Plaintiff three weeks after any 5 unsuccessful mediation to oppose the motion subject to court approval. Plaintiff’s counsel 6 maintained her position and would not agree to the extension. Defense counsel acknowledges that 7 Plaintiff did not agree to mediate the case in the email exchange of August 18, 2025. 8 II. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 9 The parties are not requesting an extension of the discovery cutoff for this case, which 10 passed on July 17, 2025. 11 III. 12 GOOD CAUSE AND EXCUSABLE NEGLECT EXIST TO EXTEND THE REMAINING 13 CASE DEADLINES
14 A. Good Cause 15 LR 26-4 governs modifications or extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 16 Any stipulation or motion to extend or modify that Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must be 17 made no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline and must 18 comply fully with LR 26-4. If the stipulation is made less than twenty-one (21) days before the 19 expiration of a deadline, the parties must show a good cause exist. A request made after the 20 expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the 21 failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. 22 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 23 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-4. The good cause analysis turns 24 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 25 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 26 Good cause exists for the following reasons: Defendant submits that it has acted diligently 27 in completing all necessary discovery for the case. However, given relevant discovery was being 28 1 completed by the parties up to the discovery cutoff, Defendant submits that additional time is 2 required to permit a review of discovery completed in any potential dispositive motions to be filed 3 by Defendant. Defendant is hopeful that the requested extension will facilitate a determination as 4 to whether the parties can participate in a mediation and or reach a settlement of this case prior to 5 expending further judicial resources and trial litigation expenses. Based on the foregoing, Defense 6 counsel is requesting an extension of twenty-one (25) days to September 5, 2025 to file dispositive 7 motions. 8 B. Excusable Neglect 9 Excusable neglect in the context of motions to extend time in federal court for filings made 10 after the deadline is evaluated under an equitable standard that considers all relevant circumstances 11 surrounding the omission. Courts generally apply the factors established in Pioneer Investment 12 Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 at 395 (1993), which include: 13 (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential 14 impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the 15 reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Thus, the 16 Supreme Court in Pioneer emphasized that excusable neglect is an equitable determination, 17 requiring courts to weigh all relevant circumstances. The most critical factor is often the reason 18 for the delay, particularly whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant. Id. Courts 19 also consider whether the delay prejudices the opposing party or disrupts judicial proceedings, as 20 well as whether the movant acted in good faith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 TGYRSIFOFNIT &H HM. EHNADYEESS L LP 2 Nevada Bar No. 7374 TYRUS COBB 3 Nevada Bar No. 8031 Email(s): ghayes@tysonmendes.com 4 tcobb@tysonmendes.com 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 5 Henderson, NV 89052 Telephone: (702) 724-2648 6 Facsimile: (702) 410-7684 Attorneys for Defendant Walmart, Inc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9
10 CHARMAINE GOODMAN MURPHY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01765-CDS-MDC individually, 11 MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO Plaintiff, FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 12 v. 13 WALMART, INC., a Foreign Corporation; and 14 DOES 1 through 20; inclusive,
15 Defendants.
16 17 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b) and 26-3. Defendant WALMART, INC., by and through 18 counsel, hereby moves this Court for an Order extending the deadline for filing dispositive 19 motions. This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 20 26-4, and is based upon the following: 21 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 22 1. The parties have conducted the FRCP 26.1 Early Case Conference. 23 2. Defendant produced its Lists of Witnesses and Documents on December 5, 2024. 24 3. Plaintiff produced her Lists of Witnesses and Documents on August 20, 2024, 25 4. Defendant propounded its First Set of Interrogatories (25 Interrogatories), Requests 26 for Production of Documents (32 Requests), and Requests for Admissions (26 Requests) to 27 Plaintiff on December 30, 2024. 28 1 5. Plaintiff served her responses to First Set of Interrogatories (25 Interrogatories), 2 Requests for Production of Documents (32 Requests), and Requests for Admissions (26 Requests) 3 to Plaintiff on February 12, 2025. 4 6. Plaintiff served her First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant 5 (19 total) and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant (20 total) on March 12, 2025. 6 7. Defendant served its Designation of Initial Experts on March 20, 2025. 7 8. Plaintiff served her Designation of Initial Experts on March 20, 2025. 8 9. Rule 35 Examination of Plaintiff. 9 10. Deposition of Plaintiff. 10 11. Defendant served its First Supplement to List of Witnesses and Exhibits on April 11 25, 2025. 12 12. Defendant served its responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for 13 Production of Documents on April 28, 2025. 14 13. Defendant served its Designation of Rebuttal Expert on May 6, 2025. 15 14. Deposition of Defendant Walmart, Inc.’s 30(b)(6) witness. 16 15. Deposition of Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. William S. Muir, MD. 17 16. Defendant served its Second Supplement to List of Witnesses and Exhibits on June 18 26, 2025. 19 17. Defendant served its Supplemental Answers to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories on 20 June 26, 2025. 21 18. Plaintiff served her First Supplement to List of Witnesses and Exhibits on July 14, 22 2025. 23 19. Defendant requested that Plaintiff’s counsel agree to a stipulation to extend time by 24 two weeks in which to file dispositive motions complete with a draft stipulation emailed on August 25 14, 2025, by handling attorney Nick Psyk, which was declined by Plaintiff’s counsel. By early 26 afternoon of that day, the handling attorney had left the firm without notice to the supervising 27 attorney that Plaintiff did not agree to the stipulation and that the motion had not yet been filed. 28 20. On August 18, 2025, the supervising attorney on the file discovered the missed 1 deadline and immediately emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to see if she would agree to stipulate to 2 allowing Defendant additional time up and until September 5, 2025 to file a dispositive motion 3 subject to court approval. She declined and indicated she would oppose Plaintiff’s motion to 4 extend. Defendant’s counsel also offered to stipulate to allow Plaintiff three weeks after any 5 unsuccessful mediation to oppose the motion subject to court approval. Plaintiff’s counsel 6 maintained her position and would not agree to the extension. Defense counsel acknowledges that 7 Plaintiff did not agree to mediate the case in the email exchange of August 18, 2025. 8 II. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 9 The parties are not requesting an extension of the discovery cutoff for this case, which 10 passed on July 17, 2025. 11 III. 12 GOOD CAUSE AND EXCUSABLE NEGLECT EXIST TO EXTEND THE REMAINING 13 CASE DEADLINES
14 A. Good Cause 15 LR 26-4 governs modifications or extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 16 Any stipulation or motion to extend or modify that Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must be 17 made no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline and must 18 comply fully with LR 26-4. If the stipulation is made less than twenty-one (21) days before the 19 expiration of a deadline, the parties must show a good cause exist. A request made after the 20 expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the 21 failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. 22 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 23 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-4. The good cause analysis turns 24 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 25 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 26 Good cause exists for the following reasons: Defendant submits that it has acted diligently 27 in completing all necessary discovery for the case. However, given relevant discovery was being 28 1 completed by the parties up to the discovery cutoff, Defendant submits that additional time is 2 required to permit a review of discovery completed in any potential dispositive motions to be filed 3 by Defendant. Defendant is hopeful that the requested extension will facilitate a determination as 4 to whether the parties can participate in a mediation and or reach a settlement of this case prior to 5 expending further judicial resources and trial litigation expenses. Based on the foregoing, Defense 6 counsel is requesting an extension of twenty-one (25) days to September 5, 2025 to file dispositive 7 motions. 8 B. Excusable Neglect 9 Excusable neglect in the context of motions to extend time in federal court for filings made 10 after the deadline is evaluated under an equitable standard that considers all relevant circumstances 11 surrounding the omission. Courts generally apply the factors established in Pioneer Investment 12 Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 at 395 (1993), which include: 13 (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential 14 impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the 15 reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Thus, the 16 Supreme Court in Pioneer emphasized that excusable neglect is an equitable determination, 17 requiring courts to weigh all relevant circumstances. The most critical factor is often the reason 18 for the delay, particularly whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant. Id. Courts 19 also consider whether the delay prejudices the opposing party or disrupts judicial proceedings, as 20 well as whether the movant acted in good faith. 21 As evidenced above, the Supreme Court has made clear that the decision by a court to 22 extend time for filings after the deadline is an equitable standard and therefore the issue of “clean 23 hands” should be examined by this court. Defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel prior 24 to the expiration of the deadline to request that Plaintiff’s counsel stipulate to continue the 25 dispositive motion deadline subject to court approval. Plaintiff’s counsel was unwilling to provide 26 this common courtesy to the Defendant, thus evidencing unclean hands on its part. On the 27 Defendant’s behalf, counsel had worked in good faith by preparing all of the work necessary to 28 1 submit a rather pro forma request for a stipulation and order to extend time. When the reasonable 2 request was unexpectedly declined by Plaintiff’s counsel, the next step would have been to file a 3 motion with the court but for the handling attorney’s abrupt exit from the firm. 4 Of greater focus here should be prongs one and two of the Pioneer standard regarding 5 danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party and the length of delay and its potential impact on 6 judicial proceedings. The Defense submits that a 25-day extension to the deadline for dispositive 7 motions will cause no appreciable prejudice to the Plaintiff nor will it negatively impact the judicial 8 proceedings. In fact, given a little more time and perhaps some compelling arguments in the 9 forthcoming dispositive motion, there may be opportunity to resolve this case without the need for 10 trial litigation expenses. 11 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY 12 13 Discovery Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Motion to Amend/Add Parties February 18, 2025 February 18, 2025 14 Initial Expert Disclosures March 20, 2025 March 20, 2025 15 All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures May 6, 2025 May 6, 2025 Discovery Cut-Off Date July 17, 2025 July 17, 2025 16 Dispositive Motions August 15, 2025 September 5, 2025 Pretrial Order September 15, 2025 October 6, 2025 17 (If dispositive motions are 18 filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will 19 be suspended until 30 days after decision on the 20 dispositive motions or further court order.) 21
22 / / / 23
25 / / / 26
28 1 V. CONCLUSION 3 The Defendant represents that this Order is sought in good faith and not interposed for 4 || delay or any other improper purpose. For the above-listed reasons, Defendant Walmart Inc. 5 || requests that the court grant a 25-day extension of the deadline for dispositive motions. If the court 6 || grants this motion, the new deadline for filing dipositive motions would be September 5, 2025. 7 Dated this 19" day of August, 205. 9 TYSON & MENDES LLP
10 /s/ Griffith Haves GRIFFITH H. HAYES 11 Nevada Bar No. 7374 TYRUS COBB 12 Nevada Bar No. 8031 2835 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 140 13 Henderson, Nevada 89052 14 Attorneys for Defendant Walmart, Inc.
15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 “p, a wa a 19 eo ft wen
21 fa ff ion. Maximiliains D. Cbuvilligé Ill 22 United Statey, agistrgte #idge Dated: 9-4- 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 The undersigned, an employee of Tyson & Mendes LLP, hereby certifies that on the 19th 3 day of August, 2025 a copy of MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE 4 MOTIONS was served via EM/ECF Filing system:
5 Betsy C. Jefferis-Aguilar 6 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM 7 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 8 Telephone: (702) 444-4444 Facsimile: (702) 444-4455 9 Attorney for Plaintiff
11 12
13 /s/ Abigail Prince 14 An employee of Tyson & Mendes LLP 15
22 23 24 25 26 27 28