Calzada v. Williamson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8] ANTHONY CALZADA, Case No. 2:22-cv-02050-GMN-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 10] v. [Docket No. 55] 11] LARRY WILLIAMSON, et al., 12 Defendant(s).

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a two-month extension to the discovery 14] cutoff and related deadlines. Docket No. 55. A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the 15] scheduling order must be premised on a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local 16] Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 18] (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff's motion indicates that he has had limited access to the law library.

19] Docket No. 55 at 1. At the same time, however, the discovery cutoff remains months away. See 20|| Docket No. 52 at 2 (setting discovery cutoff of December 10, 2024). Plaintiff has failed to explain 21] why he cannot meet the existing discovery cutoff (or the other deadlines in the scheduling order) 22] given the time remaining. Accordingly, the motion to extend is DENIED without prejudice.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: October 11, 2024 Nancy J. Koppe 26 United States Magistrate Judge