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

Filing 54

ORDER that 53 Stipulation re Discovery Deadlines is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and deadlines are EXTENDED as follows: Discovery due by 1/28/2018. Motions due by 2/26/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/27/2018. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/13/2017. (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. 53)

16

Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the discovery cutoff and subsequent deadlines

17

by 60 days. Docket No. 53. 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 only discovery identified that

21

cannot be completed by the current discovery cutoff is discovery that Defendant Arbuckle has not yet

22

propounded and depositions that it appears Arbuckle has not yet noticed. See Docket No. 53 at 2-3.1

23

Contrary to the required showing of diligence, Arbuckle asserts that it did not engage in discovery

24

because it believed that a request to stay discovery filed in the twilight of the discovery period would

25
26
27
28

1

This discovery was not identified in the initial stipulation for extension filed just days ago.
Compare Docket No. 51 at 2 (identifying other discovery that remained to be completed) with Local Rule
26-4(b) (requests for extension must provide a “specific description of the discovery that remains to be
completed”). Counsel are expected to make factual representations that are candid and complete.

1

be granted. Id. at 3 n.3. A strategic decision to forego discovery is antithetical to the required showing

2

of diligence. See Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

Moreover, it is well-settled that a belief that a request to stay discovery may be granted in the future is

4

not grounds to avoid one’s discovery obligations. See Apple v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2011 WL 334669,

5

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011) (quoting Willemijn Houdstermaatschaapij BV v. Apollo Computer Inc.,

6

707 F. Supp. 1429, 1441 (D. Del. 1989)); see also First American Title Ins. Co. v. Commerce Assocs.,

7

2016 WL 951175, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016). Accordingly, good cause has not been shown for the

8

requested extension.

9

Nonetheless, given that the request is presented as a stipulation and as a one-time courtesy to the

10

parties, the Court will allow a 30-day extension to the discovery cutoff in the circumstances of this case.

11

Accordingly, the stipulation is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and deadlines are

12

EXTENDED as follows:

13

•

Discovery cutoff: January 28, 2018

14

•

Dispositive motions: February 26, 2018

15

•

Joint proposed pretrial order: March 27, 2018

16

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: December 12, 2017

19
20

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2