1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 MICHAELA LEE, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01724-RFB-NJK 5 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 6 v. (Docket No. 16) 7 MVW OF NEVADA, INC., 8 Defendant(s). 9 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines. Docket 10 No. 16. 11 “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 12 disregarded by counsel without peril. The district court’s decision to honor the terms of its binding 13 scheduling order does not simply exalt procedural technicalities over the merits of [the parties’] 14 case. Disregard of the order would undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the 15 agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier.” Johnson v. 16 Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation and quotation marks 17 omitted). 18 A request to extend deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order must be supported by a 19 showing of “good cause” for the extension. Local Rule 26-4; see also Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608– 20 09.1 The good cause inquiry focuses mostly on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats 21 Co.,

, 1294–95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists 22 “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 23

. While prejudice to the opposing party may also be considered, when the movant 24 “fail[s] to show diligence, ‘the inquiry should end.’” Coleman,

(quoting Johnson, 25

). The Court has broad discretion in supervising pretrial litigation. Zivkovic v. S. 26 Cal. Edison Co.,

(9th Cir. 2002). 27 1 The “good cause” standard in Local Rule 26-4 is the same as the standard governing 28 modification of the scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 1 The Court finds that the parties have not been diligently conducting discovery. The parties 2|| have not engaged in discovery—aside from initial disclosures and some written discovery—since November 15, 2019. Docket No. 16 at 2; see also Docket No. 11 (scheduling order). Nonetheless, 4| due to the emergency created by the pandemic, the Court will grant this one extension. 5 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulation. Docket No. 16. 6|| The Court SETS the following deadlines: 7 e Amend pleadings/add parties: June 30, 2020 8 e Initial experts: June 30, 2020 9 e Interim status report: June 30, 2020 10 e Rebuttal experts: July 30, 2020 11 e Discovery cutoff: October 30, 2020 12 e Dispositive motions: November 20, 2020 13 e Joint Proposed Pretrial Order: December 30, 20207 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: March 25, 2020 At

17 Cinited Stace a gistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ———________ > If dispositive motions are filed, this date will be suspended until 30 days after the dispositive motions are decided or further Court order.