Windom v. Brandon

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00261
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 CHRISTIAN WINDOM, et al., 6 Case No.: 2:25-cv-00261-CDS-NJK Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 37] DIANN BRANDON, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines by 60 12 days. Docket No. 37. 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). 17 When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has 18 expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co. 19 v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable 20 neglect “determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances 21 surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 22 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Factors courts may consider when evaluating excusable neglect include (1) 23 the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 24 on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay and, (4) whether the movant acted in good 25 faith. Id. 26 The stipulation seeks relief because of a pending motion for summary judgement. Docket 27 No. 37 at 3. The parties are well aware that the pendency of a motion alone does not establish 28 good cause for an extension. See Docket No. 22 at 2. The parties also seek relief because, they state, since Defendant PV Holdings Corporation did not answer the complaint until June 12, 2025, 2|| “there was no way for the parties to have conducted any discovery within the current scheduling 3] order.” Docket No. 37 at 3. The parties’ statement run counter to prevailing caselaw. The parties have improperly granted themselves a stay of discovery. 5 Therefore, the parties have failed to demonstrate diligence. The Court entered the 6] scheduling order on February 27, 2025. Docket No. 9. Nonetheless, the parties have conducted 7| zero affirmative discovery. Docket No. 37 at 1-2; see also Docket No. 28 (denying the parties’ 8|| previous stipulation to extend discovery deadlines because they failed to demonstrate diligence). 9 Further, yet again, the instant stipulation fails to meet the requirements of the local rules. 10] See Docket Nos. 22, 28. The parties do not provide a specific description of the discovery that 11] remains to be completed, see Local Rule 26-3(b); instead, the parties submit that the discovery to 12|| be completed includes several depositions and additional written discovery. Docket No. 37 at 2. This lacks the required specificity. 14 Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation is DENIED.’ Docket No. 37. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: July 8, 2025 17 Zé 2 kon = Nancy J\Koppe 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27), ——_________ ' As the Court finds that the parties have not shown good cause, it need not reach the issue 28] of excusable neglect.