Dickens v. AHC of Las Vegas II, LLC

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 4 — DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 5 — 6 BERET DICKENS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00101-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 24] 9 AHC OF LAS VEGAS II, LLC, 10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend case management deadlines 12 by ninety days. Docket No. 24. 13 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 15 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 16 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 17 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 18 Ariz. 2012 ). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 19 period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961 , 967 20 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). When 21 diligence has not been shown in support of an extension request, “the inquiry should end.” 22 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 23 In the instant stipulation, the parties seek to extend case management deadlines by ninety 24 days. Docket No. 24. The only justification provided for this lengthy request is that “depositions 25 of Defendant’s witnesses … will not be conducted until October or November of 2025 due to 26 counsel’s calendaring conflicts.” Id. at 4. This is a vague assertion, and without further 27 explanation, is insufficient to show good cause. If “counsel’s calendaring conflicts” refers to 28 counsel’s busy litigation schedule, that is not generally grounds to modify case management 1} deadlines. See Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172 , 1179-80 (D. Nev. 2022). 2|| It is also not clear why this necessitates a delay in conducting depositions of Defendant’s witnesses 3] given there are four attorneys of record for Plaintiff and two for Defendant. To the extent 4] “calendaring conflicts” do not refer to a busy litigation schedule, the parties must inform the Court 5] with greater specificity. 6 Accordingly, the stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 24. The parties 7| are INSTRUCTED that any future extension request must provide further details showing good 8|| cause for the request. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: August 25, 2025 7 a — fe Nancy J. Koppe. 12 United States-Magistrate Judge — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —