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.

De La Cuesta v. Apttus Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 8, 2019

MARCO DE LA CUESTA, Plaintiff,
v.
APTTUS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; DOES I-X, inclusive, Defendant.

          JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Phillip C. Thompson David Montgomery, Ohio Bar # 40276 Phillip C. Thompson, Bar # 12114 Attorneys for Defendant

          Michael J. Morrison Attorney for Plaintiff Marco De La Cuesta

          MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF PLAINTIFFS DEPOSITION

         Defendant Apttus Corporation ("Apttus"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves to extend discovery in this matter for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiffs deposition. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Counsel attached hereto, all pleadings and documents on file with the Court, and any argument that the Court deems proper.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         As of March 15, 2018, the parties had agreed to a deposition schedule for the depositions of multiple witnesses, including Plaintiff. See Exhibit 1, Declaration of Phillip C. Thompson, ¶ 2. The depositions were set to take place during the week of March 19, 2018. Id. at ¶ 3. Unfortunately, on March 15, 2018, Plaintiffs counsel was forced to cancel the scheduled depositions due to health concerns. Id. at ¶ 4.

         Following that, the parties agreed to extend discovery for 120 days so that Plaintiffs counsel could address his health concerns and the parties could attempt to resolve the claims. ECF No. 66. The parties then scheduled mediation and attempted to resolve the claims without expending resources toward discovery. ECF Nos. 67, 68, 69, and 70.

         The parties were ultimately unable to reach a resolution during mediation. On February 19, 2019, the Court entered a minute order setting the close of discovery for April 11, 2019. ECF No. 74. The parties again worked to schedule multiple depositions. The parties set six depositions to take pace between March 25 and April 2, including Plaintiffs deposition. Exhibit 1 at ¶ 5.

         Unfortunately, after the parties had agreed to the deposition schedule, Plaintiffs counsel once again had to cancel all depositions in order to undergo medical treatment. la. at ¶ 6. At this time, Defendant understands that Plaintiffs counsel is unable to appear for Plaint ff s deposition. Id. at ¶ 7. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that the discovery deadline be extended for the limited purpose of permitting Defendant to conduct Plaintiffs deposition when Plaintiffs counsel is able to appear.

         Pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), a case schedule may be modified for good cause 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.

         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.

         Here, at two different times, the parties reached agreement for deposition dates and Defendant properly scheduled Plaintiffs deposition prior to the close of discovery. Both times, the depositions had to be cancelled due to health emergencies of Plaintiffs counsel Defendant's noncompliance with the discovery deadline will occur notwithstanding its diligent efforts to comply.

         Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that the discovery deadline be extended for the limited purpose of permitting Defendant to conduct Plaintiffs deposition as soon as Plaintiffs counsel is available to appear for the deposition.

         IT ...


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.