Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Advance Polybag (Nevada), Inc.
Filing
39
ORDER granting 34 Motion to Extend Time; Discovery due by 5/29/2018. Motions due by 6/26/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/26/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
v.
12
ADVANCE POLYBAG (NEVADA), INC.,
13
Defendant(s).
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-02077-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 34)
15
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to extend various deadlines in the scheduling
16
order. Docket No. 34. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos.
17
36, 37. The motion is properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.
18
As an initial matter, the motion seeks to revive the deadline to amend the pleadings that expired
19
months ago. Docket No. 34 at 8; see also Docket No. 21 at 4 (setting that deadline at January 12, 2018).
20
Meaningful argument has not been presented as to why that deadline should be revived and, therefore,
21
that aspect of the motion will be denied. See, e.g., Kor Media Grp. LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582
22
n.3 (D. Nev. 2013).1
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Nothing herein prevents either party from filing a motion seeking leave to amend notwithstanding
the expiration of that deadline. Any such motion shall address both whether good cause exists for the late
amendment (under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), in addition to whether sufficient
grounds exist for amendment (under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). See, e.g., Johnson
v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court expresses no opinion herein
as to the merits of any such motion.
1
The motion also seeks a 78-day extension to the discovery cutoff and subsequent deadlines. A
2
request to extend those deadlines must be supported by a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Local Rule
3
26-4. Defendant argues that an extension is needed based on, inter alia, late supplemental discovery
4
responses received. See, e.g., Docket No. 37 at 2-3. Plaintiff argues that Defendant back-loaded its
5
discovery requests for the twilight of the discovery period, which undermines the required showing of
6
diligence. See, e.g., Docket No. 36 at 5-6. There is some merit to each party’s argument. Given the
7
circumstances, the Court finds good cause has been shown for a 45-day extension, and deadlines are
8
EXTENDED as follows:
9
•
Discovery cutoff: May 29, 2018
10
•
Dispositive motions: June 26, 2018
11
•
Joint proposed pretrial order: July 26, 2018, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive
12
motions
13
NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
DATED: April 12, 2018
16
17
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?