Grain v. Nevada Property 1, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 PETER G. GRAIN, et al., 7 Case No. 2:23-cv-02123-RFB-NJK Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER v. 9 [Docket No. 13] NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines. Docket 13 No. 13. 14 A request to extend discovery deadlines must include a statement specifying the discovery 15 completed, a specific description of the discovery that remains, the reasons why the subject 16 deadline cannot be met, and a proposed schedule for completing the outstanding discovery. Local 17 Rule 26-3. The request must also be supported by a showing of good cause. Id. The good cause 18 analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of 19 diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). This 20 showing of diligence is measured by the movant’s conduct throughout the entire period of time 21 already allowed. CC.Mexicano.US, LLC v. Aero II Aviation, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169110, 22 at *11-12 (D. Nev. Dec. 15, 2015). If diligence is not established, the Court’s inquiry should end. 23 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal citation omitted). 24 Here, the parties have not demonstrated diligence. The parties have completed a minimal 25 amount of discovery thus far. Further, they fail to disclose the dates on which this small amount 26 of discovery was completed. Docket No. 13 at 2. Therefore, the Court cannot find good cause 27 and the inquiry ends. 28 ] Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines is DENIED without 2|| prejudice. Docket No. 13. Any subsequent request must fully comply with all applicable case 3], law and the Local Rules. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 23, 2024 Ae. Nancy J. Koppé 7 United States ) agistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28