Bermuda Road Properties, LLC v. Ecological Steel Systems, Inc.

Filing 85

ORDER Granting Bermuda Road Properties' 82 Unopposed Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motions Deadline. The Dispositive Motions deadline is extended from 5/1/2014 to 8/4/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 7/29/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***
4
5

BERMUDA ROAD PROPERTIES, LLC,
6

Plaintiff,
7
8
9

Case No. 2:12–cv–1579–JAD–VCF

vs.
ECOLOGICAL STEEL SYSTEMS, INC.,

ORDER

Defendant.

10
11
12
13

Before the court is Bermuda Road Properties’ unopposed motion to extend the dispositive
motions deadline (#82). For the reasons stated below, Bermuda Road Properties’ motion is granted.
LEGAL STANDARD

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) governs the modification of discovery plans and

15

scheduling orders. Rule 16 provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with

16
17

the judge’s consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the
movant’s diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294–95 (9th Cir. 2000).

18

Scheduling orders exist primarily to protect the court’s docket and trial calendar. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16,
19

Advisory Comm. Notes (1937 Adoption) (“stating that scheduling orders “reliev[e] the congested
20

condition of trial calendars”); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (“Disregard of
21
22

the [scheduling] order would undermine the court’s ability to control its docket. . .”); Sherman v. United

23

States, 801 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that the purpose of Rule 16 is “to encourage forceful

24

judicial management”); Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (citing In the

25

Matter of the Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th Cir. 1984) (“[T]he purpose of Rule 16 is to

1
2

insure early judicial intervention in the process of trial preparation and proper conduct of that entire
process.”).

3

Local Rule 26-4 supplements Federal Rule 16 and provides that discovery plans and scheduling

4

orders may be modified for good cause, provided that a motion to extend is made “no later than twenty-

5

one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” LR 26-4. Additionally, a motion to extend

6

the discovery deadline must include: (1) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (2) a specific

7

description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (3) the reasons why the deadline was not

8

satisfied or the remaining discovery not completed within the time set by the discovery plan; and (4) a

9

proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery.” If the moving party fails to comply with

10

Rule 26-4’s twenty-one day deadline, then the movant must demonstrate that “the failure to [file a
11

timely motion] was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26–4. The Court has broad discretion in
12

supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.
13
14
15

2002).
DISCUSSION

16

Bermuda Road moves to extend the dispositive motions deadline from May 1, 2014 to August 4,

17

2014. Bermuda Road argues that an extension is proper under Rule 16(b) and Local Rule 26-4 because

18

intervening events made it impossible for Bermuda Road to meet the dispositive motions deadline. (See

19

Pl.’s Mot. to Extend (#82) at 4:21). Specifically, the Nevada Supreme Court rendered a decision, which

20

caused Judge Dorsey to reverse one of Judge Jones’s previous decisions. (See id. at 5:6). Anticipating

21
22

this possibility, Judge Dorsey previously stated that Bermuda Road may seek “to re-urge its arguments
in light of this new development and these new rulings.” (Id. at 4:14–15) (citing Mins. Proceedings #80).

23

These circumstances warrant an extension as a matter of law because there is good cause to
24

extend the deadline and Bermuda Road’s failure to comply with the deadline is not attributable to
25

2

1
2

negligence. See Greenawalt v. Sun City W. Fire Dist., 250 F. Supp. 2d 1200, 1207 (D. Ariz. 2003)
(“Because of the interruption in the original scheduling of the litigation caused by the Ninth Circuit

3

appeal and the remand, the Court finds good cause for allowing Defendant’s additional summary

4

judgment motions.”); Lemonge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Excusable

5

neglect encompasses situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable to

6

negligence.”).

7

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

8

IT IS ORDERED that Bermuda Road Properties’ unopposed motion to extend the dispositive

9

motions deadline (#82) is GRANTED.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dispositive motions deadline is extended from May 1,
11

2014 to August 4, 2014.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14

DATED this 29th day of July, 2014.

15

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3