Order

[Docket No. 20]

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to extend the discovery cutoff and subsequent deadlines by 60 days, which was filed on an emergency basis. Docket No. 20.1 Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 22. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.

A request to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order must be supported by a showing of good cause, Local Rule 26-4, which turns on whether the subject deadline cannot reasonably be met through diligence, see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

The need for the requested extension was caused by both parties. First, Defendant's showing of diligence is not a robust one given that Ms. Sanchez's status as a fact witness has been documented for some time, including in the actual incident report. The need for an extension might have been avoided by more active pursuit of this discovery by Defendant. Second, the last-minute scramble to obtain the disputed deposition testimony stems, in part, from Plaintiff's late-disclosure of Ms. Sanchez's identity and address in supplemental disclosures. But see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) (the address of witnesses must be included with initial disclosures). Third, it appears that Defendant was attempting to coordinate the disputed depositions for the convenience of opposing counsel and the witnesses, which ultimately proved unsuccessful in the twilight of the discovery period.

These are assuredly not ideal circumstances,2 but they suffice to allow for a 30-day extension of the discovery period. The extended period applies only to the two depositions identified in the motion practice.

Accordingly, the motion to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Deadlines are EXTENDED as follows:

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.