Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nouchet v. Mandalay Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 28, 2017

ARISTIDE NOUCHET, Plaintiff,
v.
MANDALAY CORPORATION d/b/a, MANDALAY BAY RESORT AND CASINO, Defendant.

          JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Lisa A. McClane Lisa A, McClane, Bar No. 10139 Mahna Pourshaban, Bar No. 13743 Attorneys for Defendant Mandalay Corp.

          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)

         Defendant 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.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. LEGAL ARGUMENT

         A. Standard for Extending Discovery.

         Pursuant 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 explained,

... 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.

         Parties 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 deadline.

         B. Requirements pursuant to LR 26-4.

         1. Discovery Completed/Propounded to Date by Nouchet:

• 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 Sanders
• Second Production Requests to Defendant Shaun Sanders
• First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Richard ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.