United States District Court, D. Nevada
JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Lisa A. McClane Lisa A, McClane, Bar No.
10139 Mahna Pourshaban, Bar No. 13743 Attorneys for Defendant
JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Lisa A, McClane, Bar No. 10139 Mahna
Pourshaban, Bar No. 13743 Attorneys for Defendant Mandalay
Corp. dba Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (SECOND REQUEST)
Mandalay Corp. dba Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino
(“Mandalay Bay” or “Defendant”), by
and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves to extend
the close of discovery an additional thirty (30) days in this
matter. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, all pleadings and documents on file
with the Court, and any argument that the Court deems proper.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Standard for Extending Discovery.
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified
only for good cause and only with the judge's consent.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). In Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992), the court
... Rule 16(b)'s “good cause” standard
primarily concerns the diligence of the party seeking the
amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial
schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983
amendment) ... [T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving
party's reasons for seeking modification.... If that
party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.
must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule
throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.”
Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607
(E.D.Ca1.1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D.
250, 254 (S.D.W.Va.1995). In part, the “good
cause” standard requires the parties to demonstrate
that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or
will occur, notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply .
. . .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608. As set
forth below, Defendant has been diligent in its efforts to
comply with the scheduling order and but for the unexpected
medical leave of absence would have been able to meet the
Requirements pursuant to LR 26-4.
Discovery Completed/Propounded to Date by
• Responses to Interrogatories from Mandalay Bay
• Response to Production Request from Mandalay Bay
• First Production Requests to Mandalay Bay
• Second Production Requests to Mandalay Bay
• First Production Requests to Individual Defendants
• First Set of Interrogatories to Mandalay Bay
• First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Ray Sanchez
• Second Production Requests to Defendant Ray Sanchez
• First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Shaun
• Second Production Requests to Defendant Shaun Sanders
• First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Richard