Thomas v. Clark County

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 24, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00899
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6| DAICHENA THOMAS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00899-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8] v. [Docket No. 49] 9] CLARK COUNTY, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend case management deadlines by 90 days. 12] Docket No. 49. 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, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 In the pending stipulation, more time is sought because, inter alia, “the appointment of 18] [J.W.’s] guardian ad litem is pending.” Docket No. 49 at 5. Such an assertion is misplaced as the 19] motion to appoint guardian ad litem was denied without prejudice two months ago and does not appear to have been renewed. Docket No. 24. In addition, the stipulation seeks an extension due 21] to the volume of discovery, the need to review audio recordings, and one party’s incarceration. 22|| Docket No. 49 at 5. No explanation is provided as to why those circumstances warrant a lengthy 23] three-month extension. 24 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: July 24, 2023 Nancy J. Koppe\, 28 United StatesMagistrate Judge