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)

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