1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MICHAEL MACKENZIE, Case No.: 2:21-cv-02097-JCM-NJK 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6] v. [Docket No. 18] 7| IKEA US RETAIL, LLC, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend certain discovery deadlines. 10] Docket No. 18. The parties seek a 60-day extension of the discovery cut-off deadline, the 11] dispositive motions deadline, and the date for the submission of the joint pretrial order. /d. at 2. 12 A request to extend discovery deadlines must include a statement specifying the discovery 13] completed, a specific description of the discovery that remains, the reasons why the subject deadline cannot be met, and a proposed schedule for completing the outstanding discovery. Local 15] Rule 26-3. The request must also be supported by a showing of good cause. /d. The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of 17|| diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). If the 18]| request is being made after the expiration of a subject deadline, a showing of excusable neglect is 19] also required. Local Rule 26-3. 20 The parties submit that an extension 1s warranted because of scheduling problems with 21] both witnesses and parties and that excusable neglect exists because “defense counsel fell ill and 22\| was out of the office for recovery.” Docket No. 18 at 2. Without more specific information, the 23 Court is unable to assess whether good cause exists to support an extension of the discovery 24|| deadlines. Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation, Docket No. 18, is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 25, 2022 . 27 7 -\N A Nancy J. Koppe 28 United States-Magistrate Judge