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.

Caballero v. Bodega Latina Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 21, 2017

MARINA CABALLERO, Plaintiff,
v.
BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION d/b/a EL SUPER, Defendant.

          ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE (ECF NO. 13)

          Cam Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter involves Plaintiffs Marina Caballero's personal injury case from an alleged slip and fall against Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation d/b/a El Super (“Bodega”). Before the Court is Caballero's Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 13). Bodega filed a Response to Caballero's Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 14), and Caballero filed a Reply (ECF No. 16). For the reasons stated below, Caballero's Motion is granted.

         I. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) governs the modification of scheduling orders. It states that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also 6A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1522.2, 312-13 (3d ed. 2010) (“What constitutes good cause sufficient to justify the modification of a scheduling order necessarily varies with the circumstances of each case.”). In the context of Rule 16, good cause is measured by diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also 6A Wright et al., supra, § 1522.2, 313-14 (3d ed. 2010) (“In general, if the party seeking relief can show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the party's diligence, relief may be given.”).The rule permits modification of a scheduling order, but only if the existing deadlines cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Id. Prejudice to the opposing party may be considered, but where the movant fails to show diligence, the Court's inquiry must end. See id.; see also 6A Wright et al., supra, § 1522.2, 313-14 (3d ed. 2010) (“[r]elief may be granted if the court finds that the movant has not unduly delayed the action and that the opponent will not be prejudiced by the modification.”).

         Local Rule 26-4 supplements Federal Rule 16. It states:

A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause … A motion or stipulation to extend a discovery deadline … must include:
(a) A statement specifying the discovery completed;
(b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed;
(c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and
(d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery See Local Rule 26-4.[1]The “good cause” standard outlined in LR 26-4 is the same as the standard governing modification of the scheduling order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.

See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

         Scheduling orders are critical to the Court's management of its docket. See Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 610 (“Disregard of the order would undermine the court's ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier.”). The Court is charged with securing “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Delay frustrates this command. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that a case management order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” See Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 610.

         II. Discussion

         Caballero's Motion is granted because she has met her burden to show good cause. Caballero filed the instant motion on June 26, ...


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.