JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. G2 Ventures LLC et al

Filing 52

ORDER that 51 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13 G2 VENTURES LLC, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-01576-RFB-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 51) 16 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the discovery cutoff and subsequent deadlines 17 by 60 days. Docket No. 51. Requests to extend the deadlines set by the scheduling order must be 18 supported by a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Local Rule 26-4. Good cause exists if the subject 19 deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson 20 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 409 (9th Cir. 2000). The stipulation indicates that good 21 cause exists because the additional time will allow the parties to complete discovery “in a way that 22 minimizes burden and increases efficiency pending determination of the motions to dismiss.” Docket 23 No. 51 at 2. It is not entirely clear what the parties mean by this statement, but it appears to represent 24 an effort to provide the parties with a de facto stay of discovery without the parties actually meeting the 25 standards to obtain a stay of discovery or addressing the previously identified concern that discovery 26 should be essentially done at this point given the approaching discovery cutoff. 27 Moreover and more fundamentally, the remaining depositions are all currently noticed within the 28 discovery period and there is no showing that responses cannot be provided to the written discovery Docket No. 50. 1 identified within discovery period. See Docket No. 51 at 2; see also id. at 3 (identifying current 2 discovery cutoff as December 26, 2017).1 In short, there is no threshold showing that the discovery 3 cutoff as currently ordered cannot be met and the Court is not inclined to grant a 60-day extension 4 without an indication that the current discovery cutoff cannot be met through reasonable diligence. 5 Accordingly, the stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: December 1, 2017 8 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The stipulation does not identify the dates on which the written discovery was served. See Docket No. 51 at 3. Even if the written discovery was served contemporaneously with the filing of the stipulation, a one-week extension would suffice to obtain responses to that discovery based on the deadlines established in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Of course, a shorter time may also be stipulated to by the parties so that they can comply with the current discovery cutoff. See, e.g., id. (incorporating Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?