PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA PLAYUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order Vv.

9| DR. LAILA MINTAS, 10 Defendant(s).

11 Pending before the Court are responses to the letter from the Australian Government that 12|| processing of Mintas’ deposition requests was delayed due to an administrative error. See Docket 13] Nos. 604, 605.! As PlayUp and Simic note, discovery has long been closed and the case is primed 14] to move forward to a settlement conference and to the merits phase. Docket No. 605. Mintas 15|| appears to acknowledge that obtaining deposition testimony at this point would require a showing 16]| for reopening discovery, but she did not attempt to make that showing in her response. See Docket 17] No. 604 at 6 n.4.2 If Mintas still seeks Australian depositions, she must file a motion to reopen discovery by January 17, 2025. A response to that motion must be filed by January 23, 2025. Any 19] reply must be filed by January 24, 2025.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: January 14, 2025 22 4 < XS A=...

Nancy J. Koppe 23 United States Magistrate Judge 25 ' At this juncture, Mintas has limited the depositions she seeks to Kerr, Benson, and McDow. See Docket No. 604 at3 & nl. ? The cursory discussion also identifies only the good cause standard, see id., even though reopening an expired case management deadline also requires a showing of excusable neglect, see Local Rule 26-3; see also SafeCo Ins. Co. of Am. v. AirVent, Inc., 2023 WL 2844347, at *1 & n.1 28] (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 2023) (identifying controlling standards).