Roberts v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 2:17-cv-01836-JAD-NJK (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171129d85
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 16) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend various deadlines in the scheduling order by either 14 days, 32 days, or 60 days. Docket No. 16. 1 Requests to extend the deadlines set by the scheduling order must be supported by a showing of good cause. See, e.g. , Local Rule 26-4. Good cause exists if the subject deadline "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson v. Mammoth R
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 16) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend various deadlines in the scheduling order by either 14 days, 32 days, or 60 days. Docket No. 16. 1 Requests to extend the deadlines set by the scheduling order must be supported by a showing of good cause. See, e.g. , Local Rule 26-4. Good cause exists if the subject deadline "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson v. Mammoth Re..
More
ORDER (Docket No. 16)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend various deadlines in the scheduling order by either 14 days, 32 days, or 60 days. Docket No. 16.1 Requests to extend the deadlines set by the scheduling order must be supported by a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Local Rule 26-4. Good cause exists if the subject deadline "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 409 (9th Cir. 2000). The primary reason for the extension sought here is that the parties want and have agreed to more time to prepare rebuttal expert reports. See Docket No. 16 at 2. The stipulation fails to explain why more time is necessary, however, including why the current deadline cannot be met. The stipulation also asserts that Plaintiff will notice the deposition of an adjustor, which may require interstate travel. See id. Problematically, however, the previous stipulation filed more than two months ago referenced the need to conduct that same deposition, Docket No. 14 at 3, and no explanation is provided as to why the deposition could not take place during the intervening months.
Accordingly, the stipulation is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The stipulation states that the parties seek a 60-day extension. Id. The focus of the stipulation, however, relates to rebuttal experts and the proposed new deadline for rebuttal experts is 14 days after the current deadline. Id. at 2. Moreover, the proposed new deadline for the interim status report is 32 days after the current deadline. Id.
Source: Leagle
