Paulo v. Williams

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4! JUSTIN PAULO, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00474-APG-NJK 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6], v. [Docket No. 85] 7| BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to extend the dispositive 10] motions and joint pretrial order deadlines by thirty-five days. Docket No. 85. A request to extend 11} unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a showing of good cause.! Fed. 12] R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 13] motion, Docket No. 85, and EXTENDS the deadlines as follows: 14 e Dispositive Motions: May 2, 2022 15 e Pre-trial Order: June 6, 2022, 30 days after resolution of dispositive motions, or further 16 Court Order. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 22, 2022 19 7 Sa fn Nancy J.Koppe _ 20 United Sta one agistrate Judge 21 22 ' The motion’s recitation of the applicable standard for extension of a deadline in the scheduling order is inconsistent with governing law. The motion relies on a Ninth Circuit decision applying Rule 6 in the context of a request to extend a briefing schedule. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Defendants extrapolate from that case a 24| standard by which extensions are granted as a matter of course when there is a lack of prejudice or bad faith. See Docket No. 85 at 3. Defendants’ proposed standard, however, runs counter to governing Ninth Circuit case law specific to a motion to modify a deadline established by the scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16. E.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 26] 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court expects parties to cite to applicable caselaw. Citing to a standard for extending a briefing schedule instead of the well-established standard for extending deadlines 27]| in the scheduling order does not constitute effective lawyering. 28