United States District Court, D. Nevada
JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Phillip C. Thompson David Montgomery,
Phillip C. Thompson, Bar # 12 Attorneys for Defendant
Montgomery Attorneys for Defendant Apttus Corporation *
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
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.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
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.
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.
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.
after the parties had agreed to the deposition schedule,
Plantiffs counsel once again had to cancel all depositions in
order to undergo medical treatment. Id. at ¶ 6.
At this time, Defendant understands that Plaintiffs counsel
is unable to appear for Plaintiffs 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.
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., ?75 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 pa:ty 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.
part, the "good cause" standard requires the
parties to demonstrate that "noncorr pliance with a Rule
16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her
diligent efforts to comply . . . ." Jackson,
186 F.R.D. at 608.
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 counse . Defendant's noncompliance with the
discovery deadline will occur notwithstanding its diligent
efforts to comply.
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.
OF PHILLIP C. THOMPSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S ...