1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 JULIUS CZUDAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-01784-GMN-NJK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. [Docket No. 44] 10 PRO-VIGIL, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ fifth stipulation to extend discovery deadlines. 13 Docket No. 44. The parties request a 30-day extension of discovery deadlines. Id. at 4. 14 A request to extend deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order must be supported by a 15 showing of good cause for the extension. LR 26-3; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 16 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992).1 The “good cause” inquiry focuses mostly on the movant’s 17 diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,

, 1294–95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to 18 extend a discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 19 seeking the extension.” Johnson,

. While prejudice to the opposing party may also 20 be considered, when the movant “fail[s] to show diligence, ‘the inquiry should end.’” Coleman, 21

(quoting Johnson,

). The Court has broad discretion in 22 supervising pretrial litigation. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,

(9th Cir. 2002). 23 On February 18, 2021, the Court issued an order granting the parties’ fourth request for an 24 extension of discovery deadlines. Docket No. 43. Although the parties failed to comply with the 25 Court’s Local Rules requiring a specific statement of discovery that remains to be completed, the 26 Court granted the parties’ request in light of the specific difficulties the COVID-19 pandemic 27 1 The “good cause” standard in Local Rule 26-3 is the same as the standard governing 28 modification of the scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 1} caused in this case. /d. at 2. The instant request, however, again fails to provide a specific 2|| statement of discovery that remains to be completed. See id. at 4; see also LR 26-3(b). In addition, except for supplemental discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff, the parties have failed to 4] engage in any discovery following the Court’s order granting their fourth request for an extension 5], of discovery deadlines. See Docket No. 44 at 3. The parties, therefore, fail to demonstrate that they have diligently conducted discovery. 7 Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation, Docket No. 44, is hereby DENIED without prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: April 20,

fo 3 <5 —— Zo... Nancy J. Koppe 1] United Statés Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28