Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada considers the parties’ fifth stipulation to extend case management deadlines by 30 days. Although the parties did not adequately demonstrate diligence or good cause, the Court grants the extension and resets the expert disclosure, discovery, dispositive-motion, and pretrial-order deadlines.
Holdings
- The parties failed to establish good cause because they did not explain why the deadlines could not reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence, and their stated need for additional time to review records, complete expert reports, and pursue settlement was insufficient.
- The court granted the parties' stipulation and reset the case-management deadlines by 30 days, notwithstanding the inadequate good-cause showing, in an effort to resolve the case on its merits.
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 26-3 to extend unexpired case-management deadlines.
- Whether the court should grant a 30-day extension despite the parties' failure to make an adequate showing of diligence and good cause.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012)(cited)
- Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177-78, 1180-81 (D. Nev. 2022)(followed)
- Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(cited)
- Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012)(cited)
- Desio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 339 F.R.D. 632, 641 (D. Nev. 2021)(cited)
- Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…