Borenstein v. The Animal Foundation

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 4 — DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 5 — 6 BRIAN BORENSTEIN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00985-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 496] 9 THE ANIMAL FOUNDATION et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend the joint pre-trial order 12 deadline. Docket No. 496. 13 On May 30, 2025, the parties filed the first stipulation to extend the joint pre-trial order 14 deadline, submitting that “both parties are actively engaging in discussion concerning the 15 possibility of settlement and further mediation while also preparing for trial.” Docket No. 492 at 16 1. The Court granted that stipulation. Docket No. 493. On July 24, 2025, the parties filed the 17 second stipulation to extend the joint pre-trial order deadline, again submitting that “coinciding 18 deadlines in other cases,” “scheduling matters for the parties’ counsel,” ongoing “settlement 19 discussions,” and the “mediator’s schedule” necessitated the delay. Docket No. 494 at 1-2. The 20 Court granted that stipulation as well. Docket No. 495. The instant motion is the parties’ third 21 request to extend the joint pre-trial order deadline. Docket No. 496. 22 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 23 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 24 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 25 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 26 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 27 Ariz. 2012 ). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 28 period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961 , 967 1} (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). When diligence has not been shown in support of an extension request, “the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 . 4 The parties, again, seek to extend the joint pretrial order deadline. Docket No. 496. This 5] 1s the third time the parties have submitted that counsels’ schedules, settlement discussions, and 6|| potential mediation necessitate the extension. Docket Nos. 492, 494, 496. However, counsels’ 7| busy litigation schedule, the existence of settlement discussions, and potential mediation are not 8|| generally grounds to modify case management deadlines. See Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 9] 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172 , 1179-82 (D. Nev. 2022). Further, the parties have not provided any 10] information as to the dates of future mediation or the specific actions taken to facilitate settlement. 11 Nonetheless, the Court will GRANT the stipulation. Docket No. 496. The parties are 12] INSTRUCTED that any future extension request should include the date of mediation and further 13] details regarding actions taken to facilitate settlement. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: August 21, 2025 Nancy J.Koppe 17 United States M agistrate Judge — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —