Worthams v. GEICO Choice Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA WILLIE WORTHAMS, 4 Case No.: 2:24-cv-00023-RFB-NJK Plaintiff, 5 Order v. 6 [Docket No. 98] GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, etal. 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines by 90 10] days. Docket No. 98. 11 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 12], showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 13] on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 141 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 15 The stipulation seeks relief on several grounds. Docket No. 98 at 4-6. The Court finds that 16] good cause has been established due to the December 19, 2025 deposition and the attorney that 17] has been impacted by the Los Angeles fires. 18 For good cause shown, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED. Deadlines are RESET as 19} follows: 20 e Discovery cutoff: April 30, 2025 21 e Dispositive motions: June 2, 2025 22 e Joint proposed pretrial order: July 1, 2025, 30 days after resolution of dispositive 23 motions, or further order of the Court 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 10, 2025 AK. 26 f be . = ae Nancy J. Kopp, \ 27 United States-Magistrate Judge 28