United States District Court, D. Nevada
P. KEMP, ESQ., VICTORIA L. NEAL, ESQ., KEMP & KEMP,
Attorneys for Plaintiff Antonio Torres.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, Plaintiff ANTONIO TORRES and
Defendant BELLAGIO, LLC, by and through their respective
attorneys of record, hereby submit this Stipulation and
Proposed Order Extending discovery Deadlines for a period of
ninety (90) days. This is the first request for an extension
to the discovery plan and scheduling order in this matter.
The requested extension is sought in good faith and not for
purposes of delay.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Civ. P. 16(b)(4) governs the modification of discovery plans
and scheduling orders. Rule 16 provides that "[a]
schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the
judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The
“good cause” standard focuses primarily on the
movant's diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,
232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). Local Rule 26-4
provides that discovery plans and scheduling orders may be
modified for good cause, provided that a motion to extend is
made “no later than twenty-one (21) days before the
expiration of the subject deadline.” LR 26-4.
Additionally, a motion to extend the discovery deadline must
include: (1) a statement specifying the discovery completed;
(2) a specific description of the discovery that remains to
be completed; (3) the reasons why the deadline was not
satisfied or the remaining discovery not completed within the
time set by the discovery plan; and (4) a proposed schedule
for completing all remaining discovery.
to LR 26-4, this Request to extend the discovery cut-off
deadline is subject to the good cause standard. Good cause
“is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed
broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.”
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures. Inc., 624 F.3d 1253,
1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Good cause exists to extend the
parties' discovery deadlines. The parties agreed at the
Early Neutral Evaluation conference on March 15, 2018 to stay
these proceedings for a period of six weeks (from the
parties' attendance at the Early Neutral Evaluation
conference and April 30, 2018, the final day of stay) during
which time the parties attempted to reach a settlement. On
March 23, 2018, the parties submitted a Stipulation To Stay
Proceedings Until April 30, 2018, while the Parties attempted
to reach that settlement. ECF No. 14. The
Court granted that Stipulation on March 27, 2018. ECF
No. 15. The Parties were not successful in resolving
this matter and now request the following Order Extending
Discovery Deadlines be approved by the Court.
Statement Specifying Discovery Completed
parties have exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP
Specific Description Of Discovery That Remains To Be
parties stipulated to the stay prior to engaging in any other
discovery. Therefore, all other discovery is outstanding.
Reason Why The Discover Deadlines Cannot Be Meet
matter was stayed.
REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE ...