Yates v. Director of Nursing HDSP

Opinion

Roderico LeCount Yates, Case No. 2:23-cv-02008-CDS-NJK Plaintiff, Order v. [Docket No. 59] Jaymie Cabrera, Defendants. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cutoff. Docket No. 59. Defendant filed a response expressing non-opposition to the motion. Docket No. 61. 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. This 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). In this case, Plaintiff propounded discovery approximately two months ago. See Docket No. 59 at 3. Due to defense counsel’s personnel and computer issues, responses have not been provided to that discovery. See Docket No. 61 at 1-3. Hence, good cause exists to modify this deadline, though the Court has not been provided sufficient reason to support the 120-day extension that is sought. Instead, the Court will extend the discovery cutoff by 60 days. Lastly, the record reflects that Defendant made a strategic decision not to obtain any discovery from Plaintiff. Docket No. 61 at 3. Given that circumstance, the discovery extension is provided herein only as to Plaintiff based on his diligence; Defendant is not permitted to herself seek any discovery at this juncture. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cutoff is GRANTED. Deadlines are RESET as follows:  Amend pleadings/ add parties: closed 1 e Discovery cutoff: November 7, 2025 e Discovery motions: November 21, 2025 e Dispositive motions: December 8, 2025 e Joint proposed pretrial order: January 6, 2026, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive motions Dated: September 17, 2025 . LES x Nancy J. Koppe, United States □ strate Judge 1]