1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Case No. 2:23-cv-01192-JCM-DJA 6 Company,

7 Plaintiff, Order

8 v.

9 Pedro Lopez-Villasenor; Richard A. Harvey; Treiton Maybee; et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company’s motion to 13 extend discovery deadlines. (ECF No. 64). Allstate explains that an extension is necessary 14 because it needs to conduct additional depositions that it has had difficulty scheduling, in part 15 because Defendant Pedro Lopez-Villasenor is incarcerated. (Id.). Lopez-Villasenor filed a 16 response to the motion, not opposing the request to extend. (ECF No. 65). No other party 17 responded to the motion, constituting their consent to the Court granting it under Local Rule 7- 18 2(d). Here, the Court finds that Allstate has demonstrated good cause to extend the discovery 19 deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see LR 26-3. The Court thus grants the motion. 20 Also before the Court is Allstate’s motion to take the deposition of Lopez-Villasenor 21 (ECF No. 62) and errata to that motion correcting the place of Lopez-Villasenor’s incarceration 22 (ECF No. 63). No party responded to the motion, again constituting their consent to the Court 23 granting it under Local Rule 7-2(d). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) a party 24 seeking to depose a witness in custody must obtain leave of court. “The Court ‘must grant leave 25 to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) [defining the scope of relevant discovery] and 26 (2) [granting the Court discretion to limit discovery under some circumstances].’” Medina v. 27 County of Los Angeles, No. 2:21-cv-05554-DMG-KESx,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 1 (1) whether the discovery is cumulative or duplicative or is readily obtainable from another more 2 convenient source; (2) whether the party seeking the discovery has had ample opportunity to 3 obtain the information; and/or (3) whether the discovery falls outside the scope of discovery 4 permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).”

“Other courts considering motions to depose incarcerated 5 persons under Rule 30(a)(2)(B) have considered whether the requested deposition[:] (1) is 6 relevant and proportional to the needs of the case per Rule 26(b)(1)[;] and (2) implicates any of 7 the concerns listed in Rule 26(b)(2).”

(citing Becker v. OSB Inv., LLC, No. 2:19-mc-00032- 8 MWF,

, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2019) and Griffin v. Johnson, No. 1:13-cv- 9 01599,

, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2016)). 10 The Court grants Allstate’s motion to depose Lopez-Villasenor. Allstate has sought leave 11 to depose Lopez-Villasenor and has explained that the deposition is necessary to the preparation 12 of its case. The Court also does not find, and Lopez-Villasenor does not argue, that the proposed 13 deposition implicates the concerns outlined in Rule 26(b)(2). 14 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Allstate’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 64) is 16 granted. The following deadlines shall govern discovery: 17 18 Discovery cutoff: May 13, 2025 19 Dispositive motions: June 12, 2025 20 Pretrial order: July 14, 20251 21 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Allstate’s motion to depose Lopez-Villasenor (ECF 23 No. 62) is granted. The Pioche Conservation Camp shall allow for the deposition of Pedro 24 Lopez-Villasenor at a date and time that is mutually convenient for the parties and the institution, 25 26 27 1 The Court moves this deadline so that it does not fall on a weekend. Additionally, under Local Rule 26-1(b)(5), if dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will 1 but no later than March 24, 2025. Allstate must contact the Pioche Conservation Camp to 2 schedule the deposition. 3 4 5 DATED: January 23, 2025 6 7 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27