1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 ALEXY GONZALEZ, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02013-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 15] 9 CARDENAS MARKETS, LLC,

10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ renewed stipulation to extend case management 12 deadlines by 90 days. Docket No. 15. 13 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 15 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 16 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992).1 17 The stipulation seeks relief because Plaintiff is waiting on requested surveillance footage 18 and photographs, and discovery concerning the surfaces of the floor which are “of profound 19 importance to Plaintiff in the creation of Plaintiff’s expert reports.” Docket No. 15 at 3. Further, 20 Defendant seeks relief as it has recently received information indicating that Plaintiff was involved 21 in a prior automobile collision and is in the process of obtaining medical records.

Lastly, the 22 parties are “currently actively engaged in meaningful settlement discussions…and Plaintiff has 23 provided Defendant with a written settlement offer.”

As the parties are well aware, see Docket 24 No. 14 at 1, settlement discussions are a common aspect of federal litigation, and it is well-settled 25 that the existence of such discussions is not good cause to modify the scheduling order. Williams, 26 1 That a request is jointly submitted “neither mandates allowance of the extension sought 27 nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief. Failure to provide such showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case management 28 deadlines.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc.,

, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022). 1} 627 F. Supp. 3d at 1181. The Court is not inclined to modify the case management schedule simply 2|| because settlement is being discussed. 3 Additionally, there has been no showing of diligence. The parties have engaged in very 4] little affirmative discovery. Docket No. 15 at 1-2. 5 The Court will, nonetheless, allow a 30-day extension of the current deadlines. 6| Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Docket No. 7| 15. Deadlines are RESET as follows: 8 e Initial expert disclosures: March 26, 2025 9 e Rebuttal expert disclosures: April 24, 2025 10 e Discovery cutoff: May 26, 2025 11 e Dispositive motions: June 23, 2025 12 e Joint proposed pretrial order: July 21, 2025, 30 days after resolution of dispositive 13 motions, or by further Court order 14 Any future request to extend discovery deadlines must include a robust showing of 15] diligence. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: February 3, 2025

19 Unites ye M agistrate Judge 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28