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.

Torres v. Bellagio, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 4, 2018

ANTONIO TORRES, Plaintiff,
v.
BELLAGIO, LLC, a Nevada corporation; Defendant.

          JAMES P. KEMP, ESQ., VICTORIA L. NEAL, ESQ., KEMP & KEMP, Attorneys for Plaintiff Antonio Torres.

          STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES

          CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Pursuant 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.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. LEGAL ARGUMENT

         Fed. R. 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.

         Pursuant 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.

         A. Statement Specifying Discovery Completed

         The parties have exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1).

         B. Specific Description Of Discovery That Remains To Be Completed

         The parties stipulated to the stay prior to engaging in any other discovery. Therefore, all other discovery is outstanding.

         C. Reason Why The Discover Deadlines Cannot Be Meet

         The matter was stayed.

         ** REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE ...


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.