Stamler v. Pro Trucking Inc., d/b/a Pro Advantage

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 LYN L. STAMLER, 5 Case No. 2:22-cv-02023-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 6 ORDER v. 7 PRO TRUCKING, INC., et al., [Docket No. 35] 8 Defendant(s). 9 Pending before the Court is a second amended discovery plan and scheduling order. 10 Docket No. 35. The parties, however, already filed a discovery plan and the Court previously 11 issued a scheduling order in this case. See Docket Nos. 10, 13, 24. The Court, therefore, construes 12 the instant filing as a request to reopen and extend case management deadlines. 13 A request to extend deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order must be supported by a 14 showing of good cause for the extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good 15 cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise 16 of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). The 17 required showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire period 18 of time already allowed. See, e.g., Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F. Supp. 2d 961, 967 19 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Further, to seek an extension of an expired discovery deadline, a movant must 20 make “a showing of good cause” and “demonstrate that the failure to act [before the deadline 21 expired] was the result of excusable neglect.” Local Rule 26-3. 22 “When a request to extend case management deadlines is made by stipulation, courts may 23 consider the joint nature of the request in deciding whether the circumstances warrant an 24 amendment to the scheduling order. Nonetheless, courts addressing such requests are deciding at 25 bottom whether to modify their own orders, an issue that need not be based necessarily on the 26 promptings of the parties.” Williams v. James River Grp., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 27 2022). The Court has broad discretion in supervising pretrial litigation. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison 28 Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). ] The parties fail to demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect to warrant reopening and 2|)| extending the discovery deadlines. The instant stipulation seeks to reopen and extend all discovery deadlines by 180 days from the date Third-Party Defendants filed their answer. See Docket No. 4] 35 at 4. The request is premised on Third-Party Defendants needing time to review the discovery conducted thus far, to secure experts, and further conduct discovery. See id. at 5. However, the 6] parties fail to explain why they waited nearly one month after Third-Party Defendants filed their 7|| answer to seek this extension, and further fail to explain why they seek to reopen the deadline to 8|| add or amend pleadings. 9 Moreover, the discovery period in this case, 371 days, is far beyond the presumptively reasonable 180-day period. See Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). The Court previously stated that it would 11] not grant further extensions due to this lengthy discovery period. See Docket No. 24 at 2. Nonetheless, the parties now seek to extend case management deadlines by an additional 180 days without any explanation. To the extent that the parties seek the extension due to the recently added 14] Third-Party Defendants, the Local Rules provide that Third-Party Defendants are entitled to the 15|| existing discovery in the case. See Local Rule 26-5. The discovery period does not merely “start over” when a new party is added. Thus, a 180-day extension is excessive, and the parties have not 17|| established good cause or excusable neglect to warrant such a request. 18 Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation to reopen and extend discovery deadlines is DENIED 19] without prejudice. Docket No. 35. Any subsequent request to reopen and extend the discovery 20|| deadlines must fully comply with the Local Rules and must be filed no later than November 15, 21} 2023. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: November 8, 2023 24 7, oe Nancy J. Keppe 25 United States, Magistrate Judge 26 27 28