Perez Torres v. Risley

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01881
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 CELIA PEREZ TORRES, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01881-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 20] 9 DAVID RISLEY,

10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines by 60 12 days. Docket No. 20. 13 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 15 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 16 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 17 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 18 Ariz. 2012). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the 19 entire period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 20 967 (N. D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E. D. Cal. 1999)). 21 That a request is jointly submitted “neither mandates allowance of the extension sought nor 22 exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief. Failure to provide such 23 showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case management deadlines.” 24 Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022) 25 The stipulation seeks relief because “the Court has yet to rule” on Defendant’s motion for 26 leave to file third party complaint, the parties are still waiting for relevant documents, and new 27 counsel has undertaken the handling of Plaintiff’s case. Docket No. 20 at 3. The pendency of a 28 motion alone does not establish good cause for an extension. ] Additionally, the instant stipulation fails to meet the requirements of the local rules. The 2|| parties do not provide a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed, see 3] Local Rule 26-3(b); instead, the parties submit that the discovery to be completed includes 4|| “deposition(s) of percipient witnesses ... of treating physicians ... of all expert witnesses ... any additional written discovery.” Docket No. 20 at 2. This lacks the required specificity. 6 Further, there has been no showing of diligence. As one example, the parties did not 7|| conduct any discovery in March and provide no explanation as to why. See Docket No. 20 at 2. 8 As a one-time courtesy, the Court will grant the extension. The Court is not inclined to 9] extend deadlines further. The parties must diligently conduct discovery. Accordingly, the 10] stipulation to extend is GRANTED. Docket No. 20. Deadlines are RESET as follows: 11 e Discovery cutoff: June 10, 2025 12 e Dispositive motions: July 11, 2025 13 e Joint proposed pretrial order: August 11, 2025, 30 days after resolution of 14 dispositive motions, or by further Court order 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 7, 2025 17 fH □ Soe fon Nancy J>Koppe 18 United: Staties\) agistrate Judge 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28