H. v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC et al

Filing 97

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the 96 stipulation to extend case management deadlines is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for substitution of attorney is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael C. Kane, Esq., Bradley J. Myers, Esq., Joel Hengstler, Esq., Thomas N. Beckom, Esq., and The702Firm Injury Attorneys are substituted as counsel of record for Plaintiff in this action in the place of Sean K. Claggett, Esq., Brian Blankenship, Esq., Kevin T. Strong, Esq., Scott E. Lundy, Esq., and Claggett & Sykes Law Firm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/10/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9

A.H.,

Case No. 2:24-cv-1041-GMN-NJK

Plaintiff,

Order

v.

[Docket No. 96]

WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC., et al.,

10
11

Defendants.
Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend case management deadlines

12 by 45 days and Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of counsel. Docket No. 96.
13

A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a

14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns
15 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence.
16 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence
17 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D.
18 Ariz. 2012). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire
19 period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 967
20 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999)).
21 Failure to provide such showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case
22 management deadlines. Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev.
23 2022).
24

A request to extend case management deadlines must provide a “statement specifying the

25 discovery completed.” Local Rule 26-3. To allow the Court to make a proper determination of
26 whether the parties have been diligent throughout the discovery period, this statement must include
27 the dates on which all discovery occurred. Such information is absent here. See Docket No. 96 at
28 4. Additionally, the parties do not provide a specific description of the discovery that remains to
1

1 be completed, see Local Rule 26-3(b). Instead, the parties submit that “more work remains,
2 particularly with respect to exchanging hit reports and finalizing search terms that will, in turn,
3 generate further and more substantial document productions before taking of depositions in
4 earnest.” Docket No. 96 at 4. This lacks the required specificity.
5

Further, the stipulation seeks relief because of a potential conflict with Plaintiff’s local co-

6 counsel and filing issues. Id. at 2-3. The parties offer no explanation as to why a 45-day extension
7 is necessary at this juncture, as discovery has been ongoing since September 11, 2024, and the
8 discovery cutoff is three months away. See Docket No. 60.
9

Accordingly, the stipulation to extend case management deadlines is DENIED without

10 prejudice. Docket No. 96. Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of attorney is GRANTED. Id. It is
11 ORDERED that Michael C. Kane, Esq., Bradley J. Myers, Esq., Joel Hengstler, Esq., Thomas N.
12 Beckom, Esq., and The702Firm Injury Attorneys are substituted as counsel of record for Plaintiff
13 in this action in the place of Sean K. Claggett, Esq., Brian Blankenship, Esq., Kevin T. Strong,
14 Esq., Scott E. Lundy, Esq., and Claggett & Sykes Law Firm.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: March 10, 2025
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2