1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 MARIA DEL CARMEN CORTES-REYES, Case No. 2:25-cv-00323-GMN-NJK 9 Plaintiff, Order 10 v. [Docket No. 25] 11 ENRIQUE HERRERA CARRASCO, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to extend case management deadlines 14 by 30 days. Docket No. 23. 15 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 16 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 17 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 18 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 19 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors,

(D.

). “The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 21 period of time already allowed.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc.,

, 1177 22 (D. Nev. 2022). The Court considers whether relief from the scheduling order is sought based on 23 the development of matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule 24 was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc.,

(E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may 25 also consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the movant was diligent in seeking 26 modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that the movant required relief from 27 the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC,

(S.D. Cal. 2012). 28 “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of 1 relief.” Johnson,

. When diligence has not been shown in support of an extension 2 request, “the inquiry should end.” Id.1 Although the Court may consider the joint nature of a 3 stipulation to extend, “[t]hat a request is made jointly neither mandates allowance of the extension 4 sought nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief.” Williams, 5 627 F. Supp. 3d at 1178. 6 The parties seek to extend case management deadlines by 60 days. Docket No. 25. The 7 instant stipulation is the parties’ sixth request to extend case management deadlines in this matter. 8 See Docket Nos. 11 (first request), 13 (incorrectly labeled “first request”), 17, 20, 23, 25. Despite 9 the Court previously informing the parties of the correct number of extension requests, see Docket 10 No. 24 at 2, the instant stipulation incorrectly states that this is the parties’ fifth request for an 11 extension of time. Docket No. 25 at 1; see also LR IA 6-1(a). The scheduling order in this matter 12 was entered on March 31, 2025. Docket No. 10. Since July 31, 2025, this is the parties’ fourth 13 request for an extension in which they submit that additional time is needed to obtain and review 14 records, complete expert reports, and engage in meaningful settlement discussions. See Docket 15 Nos. 17 at 5-6, 20 at 6-7, 23 at 6-7, 25 at 7-8. The parties fail to explain why the subject deadlines 16 cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence beyond merely asserting that additional 17 time is needed. See Docket No. 25 at 7-8; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

(9th Cir. 1992). Specifically, the parties fail to explain why the remaining three 19 months in the discovery period is an insufficient amount of time to complete discovery. Further, 20 the reasons provided are insufficient to establish good cause. See Williams v. James River Grp. 21 Inc.,

, 1180-81 (D. Nev. 2022) (holding that needing more time to review 22 medical records, craft expert reports, and discuss possible settlement do not establish good cause); 23 see also Docket No. 12 at 1-2 n.2 (“It is well-settled that the existence of settlement talks or 24 alternative dispute resolution is generally insufficient to establish good cause for extension of the 25 case management deadlines”). 26 1 The Ninth Circuit has emphasized the importance of scheduling orders, see Desio v. State 27 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

, 641 (D. Nev. 2011) (collecting cases), and has stated bluntly that Rule 16 scheduling orders must “be taken seriously,” Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 28

(9th Cir. 1994). 1 Nonetheless, in an effort to resolve the case on its merits and as a final courtesy to the 2|| parties, the Court will afford the parties a 30-day extension. The Court therefore GRANTS the 3] parties’ stipulation in part. Docket No. 25. Case management deadlines are RESET as follows: 4 e Initial experts: February 23, 2026 5 e Rebuttal experts: March 27, 2026 6 e Discovery cutoff: April 24, 2026 7 e Dispositive motions: May 26, 2026 8 e Joint proposed pretrial order: June 25, 2026, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive 9 motions 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: December 23, 2025 ae Hn. Nancy J. Koppe* 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28