Carol J. Davis v. Walmart, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 CAROL J. DAVIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01888-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 18] 9 WALMART, INC., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend case management deadlines by two 12 months. Docket No. 18. 13 The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the importance of scheduling orders, see 14 Desio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 339 F.R.D. 632, 641 (D. Nev. 2011) (collecting cases), 15 and has stated bluntly that Rule 16 scheduling orders must “be taken seriously,” Janicki Logging 16 Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the 17 scheduling order must be premised on a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local 18 Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be 19 met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 20 (9th Cir. 1992). The required showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed 21 throughout the entire period of time already allowed. See, e.g., Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 22 731 F. Supp. 2d 961, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “When a request to extend case management deadlines 23 is made by stipulation, courts may consider the joint nature of the request in deciding whether the 24 circumstances warrant an amendment to the scheduling order. Nonetheless, courts addressing such 25 requests are deciding at bottom whether to modify their own orders, an issue that need not be based 26 necessarily on the promptings of the parties.” Williams v. James River Grp., ___ F. Supp. 3d ____, 27 2022 WL 4181415, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 13, 2022). 28 ] The instant stipulation is predicated on two reasons. First, the stipulation seeks more time 2|| because the parties are discussing settlement and wish to avoid the cost of three outstanding 3] depositions. Docket No. 18 at 3-4. Settlement discussions are an ordinary aspect of federal 4] litigation and do not constitute good cause to extend case management deadlines. E.g., Williams, 5], 2022 WL 4181415, at *5 (collecting cases). Second, the stipulation seeks more time to locate one 6| of the remaining deponents. Docket No. 18 at 3-4. Such an assertion begs the question as to why 7| the parties waited until the end of the discovery period to tee up this deposition. Cf My Home Now, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 6433960, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 28, 2016). 9] Diligence has not been shown when judged against the entire period for discovery. As a one-time 10|| courtesy to the parties, however, the Court will allow a 14-day extension of the discovery cutoff 11] so that this deposition may move forward. 12 Accordingly, the stipulation for extension is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 13], Case management deadlines are hereby RESET as follows: 14 e Initial disclosures: closed 15 e Initial experts: closed 16 e Rebuttal experts: closed 17 e Discovery cutoff: May 22, 2023 18 e Dispositive motions: June 20, 2023 19 e Joint proposed pretrial order: July 20, 2023, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive 20 motions 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: May 2, 2023 24 Unite SPR, gistrate Judge 25 26 27 28