Griensewic v. Target Corporation

Filing 20

ORDER Granting Defendant's 19 Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 9/27/2016. Motions due by 10/27/2016. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/28/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 07/26/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13

LAURA GRIENSEWIC,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant(s).

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02282-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 19)

15

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for extension of discovery deadlines. Docket

16

No. 19. Plaintiff failed to respond. See Docket. The Court finds the matter properly resolved without

17

oral argument. See LR 78–1. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion, Docket No. 19,

18

is GRANTED.

19

To prevail on a request to amend a scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

20

16(b), a movant must establish good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

21

609 (9th Cir. 1992); see also LR 26-4. The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s

22

diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to

23

extend the discovery cutoff exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

24

seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Advisory Committee’s Notes to Federal Rule

25

of Civil Procedure 16). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no

26

reason for a grant of relief.” Id. (citing Engleson v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043

27

(9th Cir. 1992))

28

1

Defendant submits that the parties have diligently conducted a substantial amount of discovery

2

in this matter. Docket No. 19 at 3; see also id. at 4 (detailing discovery completed to date). Yet, despite

3

having timely noticed several depositions before the close of discovery, Defendant represents that at

4

least three deponents have advised they are unavailable for deposition until after the discovery cut-off.

5

Id. at 3-4.

6

Accordingly, good causes exists for the requested extensions. Defendant’s motion for extension

7

of discovery deadlines, Docket No. 19, is therefore GRANTED. The discovery cut-off is extended to

8

September 27, 2016; the dispositive motions deadline is extended to October 27, 2016; and the joint

9

pretrial order is extended to November 28, 2016. If dispositive motions are filed, then the joint pretrial

10

order deadline shall be extended to 30 days after the decision on the dispositive motions or further order

11

of the Court.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: July 26, 2016

14
15

______________________________________
___________________________
____
_
_
NANCY J. KOPPE
ANCY J KOPPE
OP
OPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
nited States Magistrate
te
te
ag st

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2