Alexander Rodriguez v. Unicity International, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 4 — DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 5 — 6 ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-00754-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 34] 9 UNICITY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend case management deadlines. Docket 12 No. 34. 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 sixty 24 days. Docket No. 34. The justification provided for this request is that “[t]he parties are hopeful 25 they may be able to resolve the dispute during the [ENE] and seek an extension to the discovery 26 deadlines to allow the parties to engage in confidential settlement discussions before expending 27 significant funds to conduct discovery.” Docket No. 34 at 3. However, the parties’ assertion that 28 additional time is needed to engage in settlement discussions does not establish good cause for the 1} extension sought. See Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172 , 1181 (D. Nev. 2022) (“As such, it is well-settled that the existence of settlement talks or the potential for 3] alternative dispute resolution is not, standing alone, sufficient to establish good cause for an 4] extension of the case management deadlines.”). Further, the parties have conducted virtually no 5| affirmative discovery. See Docket No. 34 at 2. Therefore, the Court cannot find diligence. 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ stipulation without prejudice. Docket No. 7| 34. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 2, 2025 ee Nancy J. Koppa, x , 11 United States Magistrate Judge — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —