Gallindo et al v. Lowden et al

Filing 27

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Extend Time re Discovery Cutoff. Discovery due by 11/28/2016. Motions due by 12/28/2016. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/27/2017. Plaintiffs shall conduct all necessary discovery now regardless of whether the motion to dismiss remains pending. There will be no further extensions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/14/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
RAVEN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
CHRISTOPHER LOWDEN, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02299-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 23)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the discovery cutoff by 90 days. Docket

17

No. 23. Defendants filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiffs filed a reply. Docket Nos. 25, 26. The

18

undersigned finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-1. For the

19

reasons discussed more fully below, the motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

20

The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. Zivkovic v. S. Cal.

21

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). A motion to extend deadlines in the Court’s

22

scheduling order must be supported by a showing of “good cause” for the extension. Local Rule 26-4.

23

The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,

24

232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000).

25

The showing of good cause in the underlying motion is questionable. The gist of the motion is

26

that Plaintiffs do not want to conduct third party discovery until a ruling is made on Defendants’ pending

27

motion to dismiss. Docket No. 5-6. Problematically for Plaintiffs, they previously sought a stay of

28

discovery or alternatively an extended discovery period on the same basis, and that request was denied.

1

See Docket No. 21.1 Plaintiffs essentially chose to not heed the Court’s directive to conduct all

2

discovery notwithstanding the pendency of the motion to dismiss, although they did engage in discovery

3

with Defendants.

4
5

In the interest of resolving this case on the merits and as a one-time courtesy, the Court will
extend the remaining deadlines by 30 days, as follows:

6

•

Discovery cutoff: November 28, 2016

7

•

Dispositive motions: December 28, 2016

8

•

Joint proposed pretrial order: January 27, 2017

9
10

Plaintiffs shall conduct all necessary discovery now, regardless of whether the motion to dismiss remains
pending. THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: October 14, 2016

13
14
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court also explicitly provided that, to the extent any party continued to want a stay of discovery
and believed the applicable standards could be met, a proper motion or stipulation had to be filed by June
8, 2016. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs did not seek such an order staying discovery.
2