1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 Ambibe Collins, Case No. 2:24-cv-00676-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 31] 9 J. Repp, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation seeking four types of relief: (1) leave to depose 12 prisoner Keith Knotek, (2) modification of the discovery cutoff to allow this deposition after its 13 expiration, (3) stay of the case, and (4) referral to a settlement conference. Docket No. 31. 14 Pursuant to Local Rule IC 2-2(b), the Court herein addresses only the relief related to the proposed 15 deposition of Keith Knotek. 16 “A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent 17 with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) . . . if the deponent is confined in prison.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), (B). 18 Hence, deciding whether to permit a prison deposition requires analysis of a number of 19 considerations. See, e.g., Miller v. Clark Cnty., Nev.,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 2, 20 2024). In addition, courts do not generally order discovery if it implicates the current discovery 21 cutoff and a basis for relief from that deadline has not been established. See, e.g., U.S. E.E.O.C. 22 v. Pioneer Hotel, Inc.,

, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Oct. 9, 2014). 23 The instant stipulation fails on both fronts. First, the stipulation fails to explain how the 24 identified prison deposition comports with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).1 Second, the Court set a firm 25 discovery cutoff for October 17, 2025. Docket No. 30 at 5 (“NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS 26

27 1 Particularly as it appears the instant deposition may involve a non-party, the Court does not find that the stipulated nature of this request obviates the requirement to meet the governing 28 standard. 1} WILL BE GRANTED”); see also Docket No. 24 at 3 (earlier order warning that the Court was not inclined to allow further extensions, such that the parties were required to ensure that they took 3] all reasonable steps to meet the deadlines as being set). Modifying a case management deadline 4] requires a showing of good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

, 609 5] (Oth Cir. 1992); see also Williams v. James River Grp. Inc.,

, 1178 (D. Nev. 6] 2022) (“That a request is made jointly neither mandates allowance of the extension sought nor 7|| exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief. Failure to provide such 8|| showings may result in denial of a stipulated request to extend the case management deadlines”). 9] The instant stipulation fails to provide the information required by Local Rule 26-3(a) that informs 10] the good cause analysis and, in fact, provides no argument of any kind as to how the governing 11] good cause standard is met in the circumstances of this case. 12 Accordingly, the pending stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: October 14, 2025 Nancy J. Koppe 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28