Green v. Stark et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 28 Motion to Continue Scheduled Deposition; and denying 29 Motion to Extend Time re Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 3/11/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

RICKY BERNARD GREEN,

5
6
7

Case No. 3:23-CV-00478-CLB
Plaintiff,

v.
JEFFREY STARK, et al.,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONTINUE SCHEDULED DEPOSITION
AND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME RE:
SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants.

[ECF Nos. 28, 29]

9

Before the Court is Plaintiff Ricky Bernard Green’s (“Green”) motion to continue

10

scheduled deposition, (ECF No. 28), and motion to extend the scheduling order, (ECF

11

No. 29). For the reasons discussed below, the motions are denied.

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) governs the modification of scheduling

13

orders and discovery plans. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) provides that “[a] schedule may be

14

modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” The good cause inquiry

15

focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ.

16

Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017).

17

Local Rule 26-3 supplements Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and provides that discovery plans

18

and scheduling orders may be modified for good cause, provided that a motion to extend

19

is made “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” See LR 26-

20

3; see also LR IA 6-1. “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed

21

broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures,

22

Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Requests for extensions of time made before

23

the applicable deadline has passed should “normally ... be granted in the absence of bad

24

faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id. (citing

25

4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d

26

ed. 2004)).

27

Additionally, any request for an extension of discovery must include: (1) a

28

statement specifying the discovery completed by the parties as of the date of the motion;

1

(2) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (3) the reasons

2

why remaining discovery was not completed within the existing discovery deadline; and

3

(4) a proposed schedule for the completion of the remaining discovery. (ECF No. 24 at

4

4.)

5

Here, Green requests a continuance of a scheduled deposition and a 90-day

6

extension of the scheduling order in this case due to an upcoming sentencing date in

7

Green’s state criminal case. (See ECF Nos. 28, 29.) However, Green’s motions fail to

8

specify what discovery has been completed and a specific description of the discovery

9

that remains to be completed. Further, it is unclear whether Green has undertaken a good

10

faith effort to meet and confer with Defendants to discuss the possibility of moving his

11

deposition or extending discovery. Thus, it does not appear that good cause exists to

12

grant the motions at this time.

13

Accordingly, the motions, (ECF Nos. 28, 29), are DENIED.

14

11, 2025
DATED: March
__________________.

15
16

__________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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