1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 RITA LEGER, et al., Case No.: 2:20-cv-02274-CDS-NJK 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER 6 v. [Docket No. 67] 7 LANDRY’S INC., et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to extend their discovery deadline. Docket 10 No. 67. Plaintiffs ask the Court to extend their discovery deadline to August 22, 2022. Id. at 1-2. 11 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendant’s response, and Plaintiffs’ reply. Docket 12 Nos. 67, 69, 70. This matter is properly resolved without a hearing. See LR 78-1. 13 A request to extend deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order filed within twenty-one days 14 of the deadline the party seeks to extend must be supported by a showing of good cause for the 15 extension. Local Rule 26-3; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

, 608 16 (9th Cir. 1992). The “good cause” inquiry focuses mainly on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v. 17 Quaker Oats Co.,

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

. While prejudice to the opposing party may also be 20 considered, when the movant “fail[s] to show diligence, ‘the inquiry should end.’” Coleman, 232 21 F.3d at 1295 (quoting Johnson,

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

(9th Cir. 2002). 23 The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs were required to meet and confer prior to 24 filing the motion to extend. See, e.g., Docket No. 69 at 13. Nonetheless, as the deadline is fast 25 approaching, the Court exercises its discretion to address this motion on its merits. 26 Plaintiffs ask for an extension of their discovery deadline because Plaintiffs’ counsel 27 moved law firms during the pendency of this litigation and is scheduled for two trials during the 28 month of June. Docket No. 67 at 2-3. Plaintiffs also submit that their counsel was ill for one week 1} in May and that Defendant’s counsel has indicated that she will be on vacation for one week at the 2\| end of June. Jd.' An attorney’s busy workload is not a good reason for failing to meet court 3] ordered deadlines and does not establish good cause for the purposes of extending the discovery scheduling order. See McIntyre v. Nevada,

, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Mar. 5] 10, 2022) (internal citations omitted); Garcia v. Servs. Emps. Int’l Union,

, 355 n.6 6] (D. Nev. 2019); Greene v. Alhambra Hosp. Med. Ctr.,

, at *3 (D. 7| Nev. June 3, 2015). Plaintiffs proffer no facts to establish that they have been diligent in discovery 8] up until this point. Instead, both parties’ submissions make it abundantly clear that Plaintiffs’ 9] counsel has unnecessarily delayed the discovery process by allowing himself to become overburdened. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 67 at 9-10; 69 at 7-24; 70 at 8-9. 11 The Court already expressed its concerns about the length of discovery in the instant case, 12] granting the parties’ prior stipulation to extend discovery but warning the parties that “NO 13] FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.” Docket No. 65 at 8 (emphasis in original). 14] Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for their requested extension. However, as one final 15|| courtesy, the Court will GRANT in part Plaintiffs’ request and extend their discovery deadline 16] by two weeks to provide slightly more time for Plaintiffs’ remaining depositions and to account 17| for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s illness and Defendant’s counsel’s vacation. Plaintiffs’ discovery cutoff is 18] EXTENDED to July 21, 2022. All other deadlines set forth in Docket No. 65 remain operative. 19] Plaintiffs must diligently conduct discovery during this period. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS 20] WILL BE GRANTED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: June 28, 2022 Ly “ 24 vane Stee Mista Judge 25 26 ' The Court finds no merit in Plaintiffs’ submission that the deadline should be extended to the same time as Defendant’s deadline because it is unfair to Plaintiffs to have an earlier cut-off date. See, e.g., Docket No. 67 at 5. The parties have differing discovery cut-off dates as a result of the parties’ own stipulation which was necessary, in large part, due to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s busy 28] workload and non-responsiveness to discovery obligations. See Docket No. 64.