Bank of New York Mellon, v. Imagination North Landscape Maintenance Association, et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying ECF No. 55 joint motion to extend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/10/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

IMAGINATION NORTH LANDSCAPES
MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00383-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 55)

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend discovery and continue trial.

17

Docket No. 55. To prevail on a request to amend a scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil

18

Procedure 16(b), a movant must establish good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

19

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); see also LR 26-4. The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the

20

movant’s diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000).

21

Additionally, a request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the

22

movant also demonstrates that the fact to act was the result of excusable neglect. LR 26-4.
Here, the parties filed their joint motion on August 9, 2016. Docket No. 55.

23

Among the

24

deadlines they seek to extend are the initial expert disclosure deadline and the interim status report

25

deadline, which both expired on July 18, 2016. Docket No. 24 at 2-3. Therefore, the parties are

26

required to establish excusable neglect to extend these deadlines. LR 26-4. The parties, however, fail

27

to address – much less establish – excusable neglect. Docket No. 55 at 3-4.

28

//

1

As to the remaining deadlines, the parties seek a 90-day extension of discovery on the basis that

2

discovery motions are pending and Defendant Julie Christensen has only recently joined the case.

3

Docket No. 55 at 3-4. The parties seek a significant extension that would represent an additional 50%

4

of the amount of time that is presumptively reasonable to conduct discovery under the local rules. See

5

Local Rule 26-1(b)(1) (establishing presumptively reasonable discovery period of 180 days). However,

6

Plaintiff and Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC appear to have only conducted minimal

7

discovery, while there is no indication that Defendant Christensen has diligently conducted discovery.

8

Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion to extend, Docket No. 55, is DENIED without prejudice.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

DATED: August 10, 2016
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2