Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Advance Polybag (Nevada), Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order, Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13 ADVANCE POLYBAG (NEVADA), INC., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-02077-RFB-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 17) 16 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend all of the deadlines in the scheduling order 17 by 90 days. Docket No. 17. 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 pending stipulation identifies 21 the “reasons” for the extension request as the mere fact that more time is desired for discovery. Docket 22 No. 17 at 2. This is not sufficient for any extension, let alone one seeking to enlarge the discovery 23 period by a whopping 50% only a month after the parties represented that they needed only 180 days to 24 complete discovery. See Docket No. 14. Instead, the parties must provide “[t]he reasons why the 25 deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by 26 the discovery plan.” Local Rule 26-4. Merely identifying a desire for additional time to conduct 27 discovery does not provide a reason why an extension is needed; instead the parties must explain why 28 it is they are unable to meet the schedule already established by the Court. 1 Moreover, with respect to the deadline to amend the pleadings, that deadline expired prior to the 2 filing of the stipulation. See Docket No. 15 at 2. In addition to failing to identify good cause to extend 3 that deadline, the stipulation fails to show the excusable neglect required to resuscitate an expired 4 deadline. See, e.g., Local Rule 26-4. 5 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is DENIED without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: November 29, 2017 8 9 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?