U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mariscos El Puerto, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part denying in part 36 Motion to Extend Time. Discovery due by 10/24/2024. Motions due by 11/25/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/23/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff(s), 7 8 v. 9 MARISCOS EL PUERTO, INC., et al., Order [Docket No. 36] Defendant(s). 10 11 Case No. 2:23-cv-01310-JCM-NJK Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery deadlines by 90 days. 12 Docket No. 36. Defendants previously stipulated to similar relief, Docket No. 34, and the Court 13 does not require a response or a hearing, see Local Rule 78-1. 14 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 15 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 16 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 17 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). It is well-settled that 18 the existence of settlement talks or alternative dispute resolution is generally insufficient to 19 establish good cause for later extension of the case management deadlines. Williams v. James 20 River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1181 (D. Nev. 2022). 21 The instant request is predicated on the fact that Plaintiff requires supplemental discovery 22 responses from Defendants. Docket No. 36 at 2-6. The obvious problem with that reasoning is 23 that Plaintiff appears to have delayed seeking that supplementation based on the existence of 24 settlement talks and alternative dispute resolution efforts. See id.1 Moreover and significantly, 25 meaningful explanation has not been provided as to why the circumstances described necessitate 26 27 1 The meet-and-confer took place two months after receipt of the discovery responses, which is not indicative of diligence. Cf. Chishty v. Tex. Dept. of Aging & Disability Servs., 562 F. 28 Supp. 2d 790, 797 (E.D. Tex. 2006). 1 1 the lengthy 90-day extension being sought. At the same time, the parties appear to be in agreement 2 that the defense needs to supplement their discovery responses and that such discovery is required 3 before initial expert disclosures. Given the circumstances presented, the Court will permit a 454 day extension to the case management deadlines. 5 Accordingly, the motion to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Case 6 management deadlines are hereby RESET as follows: 7  Amend pleadings/ add parties: closed 8  Initial experts: August 26, 2024 9  Rebuttal experts: September 24, 2024 10  Discovery cutoff: October 24, 2024 11  Dispositive motions: November 25, 2024 12  Joint proposed pretrial order: December 23, 2024 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: July 8, 2024 ______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge 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?