Lopez v. The Sherwin-Willams Company

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA NICHOLAS LOPEZ, 7 Case No.: 2:24-cv-01021-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 8 Order v. 9 [Docket No. 24] THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery deadlines by 90 days. Docket No. 24.

14 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence.

17 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

18 Here, the parties have failed to demonstrate diligence. The Court issued the scheduling order in this case on July 23, 2024. Docket No. 14. Nonetheless, the parties have conducted little affirmative discovery. Docket No. 24 at 2.

21 Nonetheless, as a one-time courtesy, the Court will allow a 30-day extension.

22 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Docket No. 24.

24 Deadlines are RESET as follows: 25 • Initial expert: April 14, 2025 26 • Rebuttal expert: May 14, 2025 27 • Discovery cutoff: June 11, 2025 28 • Dispositive motions: July 11, 2025 ] e Joint proposed pretrial order: August 11, 2025, 30 days after resolution of 2 dispositive motions, or further order of the Court 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: February 18, 2025 5 PS □ ee eS Nanc IK Sppe 6 cn S iG : agistrate Judge