Sedgh v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

D. Nevada

Sedgh v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 26, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02303·Unknown

Opinion

FLORENCE SEDGH, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02303-RFB-NJK Plaintiff, Order v. [Docket No. 18] COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant. Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines for 60 days. Docket No. 18. A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 967 (N. D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E. D. Cal. 1999)). That a request is jointly submitted “neither mandates allowance of the extension sought nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief. Failure to provide such showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case management deadlines.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022) Here, the parties have failed to demonstrate diligence. The Court issued the scheduling order in this case on January 13, 2025. Docket No. 14. The parties have conducted little affirmative discovery. Docket No. 18 at 2-3. 1 Nonetheless, as a one-time courtesy, the Court will allow the extension. The parties must diligently conduct discovery. Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED. Docket No. 18. Deadlines are RESET as follows: e Initial expert: June 9, 2025 e Rebuttal expert: July 11, 2025 e Discovery cutoff: August 8, 2025 e Dispositive motions: September 8, 2025 e Joint proposed pretrial order: October 13, 2025, 30 days after resolution of dispositive motions, or further order of the Court Any future request to extend discovery deadlines must include a robust showing of 12} diligence. Dated: March 26, 2025 Nancy JoK&ppe | United Si ates\Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FLORENCE SEDGH, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02303-RFB-NJK Plaintiff, Order v. [Docket No. 18] COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant. Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines for 60 days. Docket No. 18. A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 967 (N. D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E. D. Cal. 1999)). That a request is jointly submitted “neither mandates allowance of the extension sought nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief. Failure to provide such showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case management deadlines.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022) Here, the parties have failed to demonstrate diligence. The Court issued the scheduling order in this case on January 13, 2025. Docket No. 14. The parties have conducted little affirmative discovery. Docket No. 18 at 2-3. 1 Nonetheless, as a one-time courtesy, the Court will allow the extension. The parties must diligently conduct discovery. Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED. Docket No. 18. Deadlines are RESET as follows: e Initial expert: June 9, 2025 e Rebuttal expert: July 11, 2025 e Discovery cutoff: August 8, 2025 e Dispositive motions: September 8, 2025 e Joint proposed pretrial order: October 13, 2025, 30 days after resolution of dispositive motions, or further order of the Court Any future request to extend discovery deadlines must include a robust showing of 12} diligence. Dated: March 26, 2025 Nancy JoK&ppe | United Si ates\Magistrate Judge

Sedgh v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Sedgh v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Sedgh v. Costco Wholesale Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related