STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

[THIRD REQUEST]

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Randolph Day ("Plaintiff") and Defendant, Long Vue Mortgage Capital, Inc., as Trustee for WestVue NPL Trust II ("Defendant") (collectively the "Parties") by and through their respective counsels of record, hereby submit the following Stipulation and Order to extend discovery deadlines for 30 days.

A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE:

Defendant served its Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents on September 7, 2018. On November 28, 2018, Defendant served written discovery and noticed the deposition of Plaintiff for January 8, 2019. Plaintiff responded to Defendant's written discovery on December 31, 2018. On January 4, 2019, Defendants served supplemental disclosures. Plaintiff served written discovery on or about January 15, 2019, and Defendants responded on February 28, 2019.

Defendant served its Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents on March 7, 2019, and deposed Plaintiff on March 8, 2019.

B. DISCOVERY ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED IN THE FUTURE:

C. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE EXTENDED:

Good cause exists to extend the April 11, 2019, discovery deadline by an additional 30 days. The Parties request an extension because discovery cannot be reasonably concluded despite the Parties' diligence to date. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). After Plaintiff's March 8, 2019, deposition, Defendant noticed the deposition of non-party Mary Day. Furthermore, the Parties agreed to schedule the Deposition of Defendants' FRCP 30(b)(6) designee to April 25, 2019, beyond the current discovery deadline. Finally, the Parties are ascertaining the necessity of third-party subpoenas duces tecum, and supplemental disclosures relating to the same.

The Parties further agree that they need to complete outstanding discovery to properly resolve this matter on the merits, beginning with dispositive motions. See Nelson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 2011 WL 13848, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2011). This is the Parties' third request for an extension of discovery, and the Parties anticipate that no further extensions will be necessary. Again, the Parties seek a modest, 30-day extension, and do not intend to cause any undue delay or prejudice. Consequently, good cause exists under Rule 16(b)(4) to modify the current discovery schedule.

Although the Parties make this request within 21 days of the current discovery deadline, the request is permissible. See LR 26-4 ("A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline."). First, the Parties do not ask to reopen any lapsed discovery deadline (e.g. expert deadlines) at this time, and the current April 11, 2019, discovery cutoff has not passed. Second, to the extent the requested extension is required to timely request, obtain, and exchange outstanding discovery, the extension is necessitated by mere excusable neglect: logistical issues associated with prospective deposition scheduling and disclosures support a common-sense extension. Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) and noting that "[t]he determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.").

D. PROPOSED DISCOVERY EXTENSION:

1. Current Discovery Schedule Per the March 6, 2019, Order (Docket No. 48):

2. Proposed Stipulated Discovery Schedule:

IT IS SO ORDERED.