Yates v. Director of Nursing HDSP

D. Nevada

Yates v. Director of Nursing HDSP

DecidedSeptember 17, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-02008

StatusUnknown

This text of Yates v. Director of Nursing HDSP (Yates v. Director of Nursing HDSP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yates v. Director of Nursing HDSP, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 Roderico LeCount Yates, 6 Case No. 2:23-cv-02008-CDS-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 59] Jaymie Cabrera, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cutoff. Docket No. 12 59. Defendant filed a response expressing non-opposition to the motion. Docket No. 61. 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. This analysis turns on whether 15 the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. 16 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 In this case, Plaintiff propounded discovery approximately two months ago. See Docket 18 No. 59 at 3. Due to defense counsel’s personnel and computer issues, responses have not been 19 provided to that discovery. See Docket No. 61 at 1-3. Hence, good cause exists to modify this 20 deadline, though the Court has not been provided sufficient reason to support the 120-day 21 extension that is sought. Instead, the Court will extend the discovery cutoff by 60 days. 22 Lastly, the record reflects that Defendant made a strategic decision not to obtain any 23 discovery from Plaintiff. Docket No. 61 at 3. Given that circumstance, the discovery extension is 24 provided herein only as to Plaintiff based on his diligence; Defendant is not permitted to herself 25 seek any discovery at this juncture. 26 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cutoff is GRANTED. Deadlines 27 are RESET as follows: 28  Amend pleadings/ add parties: closed 1 e Discovery cutoff: November 7, 2025 2 e Discovery motions: November 21, 2025 3 e Dispositive motions: December 8, 2025 4 e Joint proposed pretrial order: January 6, 2026, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive 5 motions 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 17, 2025 8 . 9 LES x Nancy J. Koppe, 10 United States □ strate Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 Roderico LeCount Yates, 6 Case No. 2:23-cv-02008-CDS-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 59] Jaymie Cabrera, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cutoff. Docket No. 12 59. Defendant filed a response expressing non-opposition to the motion. Docket No. 61. 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. This analysis turns on whether 15 the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. 16 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 In this case, Plaintiff propounded discovery approximately two months ago. See Docket 18 No. 59 at 3. Due to defense counsel’s personnel and computer issues, responses have not been 19 provided to that discovery. See Docket No. 61 at 1-3. Hence, good cause exists to modify this 20 deadline, though the Court has not been provided sufficient reason to support the 120-day 21 extension that is sought. Instead, the Court will extend the discovery cutoff by 60 days. 22 Lastly, the record reflects that Defendant made a strategic decision not to obtain any 23 discovery from Plaintiff. Docket No. 61 at 3. Given that circumstance, the discovery extension is 24 provided herein only as to Plaintiff based on his diligence; Defendant is not permitted to herself 25 seek any discovery at this juncture. 26 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cutoff is GRANTED. Deadlines 27 are RESET as follows: 28  Amend pleadings/ add parties: closed 1 e Discovery cutoff: November 7, 2025 2 e Discovery motions: November 21, 2025 3 e Dispositive motions: December 8, 2025 4 e Joint proposed pretrial order: January 6, 2026, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive 5 motions 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 17, 2025 8 . 9 LES x Nancy J. Koppe, 10 United States □ strate Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yates v. Director of Nursing HDSP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yates-v-director-of-nursing-hdsp-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack