1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 G.P., et al., 6 Case No. 2:24-cv-01892-JAD-NJK Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 26] BEST BUY CO. INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend case management deadlines by 60 days. 12 Docket No. 26. 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). “The diligence 17 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors,

(D.

). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 19 period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,

, 967 20 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc.,

(E.D. Cal. 1999)). 21 Failure to provide such showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case 22 management deadlines. Williams v. James River Grp. Inc.,

, 1178 (D. Nev. 23 2022). 24 A request to extend case management deadlines must provide a “statement specifying the 25 discovery completed.” Local Rule 26-3. To allow the Court to make a proper determination of 26 whether the parties have been diligent throughout the discovery period, this statement must include 27 the dates on which all discovery occurred. Such information is absent here. See Docket No. 26 at 28 2. The Court ordered the parties to diligently conduct discovery, and specifically ordered that any 1} future requests to extend case management deadlines must include a robust showing to show that 2|| the governing standards are met. Docket No. 25 at 2. The parties’ stipulation is devoid of any 3], such showing. 4 Further, the stipulation seeks relief because Plaintiff's expert has become unreachable. 5 Docket No. 26 at 3. The parties offer no explanation as to why Plaintiffs expert has any bearing 6], on the rest of discovery that needs to be completed, such as other depositions. See id. at 2-3. 7| Additionally, the parties seek relief to “allow enough time to explore the potential to mediate this 8|| matter once additional discovery has been completed.” /d. at 3. The Court has previously ordered that it is not inclined to modify the case management schedule simply because settlement is being 10] discussed. See Docket No. 25 at 2. 11 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 26. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: March 7, 2025 14 0 Soon — Nancy J. Koppe — 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 .

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28