Finch v. M1 Support Services, L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7| TIAWNA FINCH, Case No. 2:21-cv-00669-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9} v. [Docket No. 18] 10] M1 SUPPORT SERVICES, L-P., 11 Defendant(s).

12 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the discovery cutoff by 60 days. Docket 13] No. 18. 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 instant stipulation 17] is premised on difficulties in scheduling Plaintiff's deposition. Docket No. 18 at 3. Other than 18] referring in general terms to “significant calendar conflicts,” no details are provided. Indeed, no 19} explanation has been provided as to why this deposition cannot be scheduled within the more than 20] two weeks in the current discovery period, cf. Charm Floral v. Wald Imports, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. 21] Lexis 16007, at *6-7 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2012) (collecting cases that “more than one week’s 22|| notice generally is considered reasonable” for depositions), let alone why an additional two months 23] would be required to schedule this deposition.

24 Accordingly, the stipulation for extension is DENIED without prejudice.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: October 29, 2021 Le 27 ZEN nn Nancy J.Ko 28 United States Magistrate Judge