STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

Second Request

CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Michael Talasaz, by and through his attorney Christopher S. Connell, Esq. of the law firm of Connell Law and Defendant Ross Silver by and through his attorney of record Hector J. Carbajal II, Esq. of the law firm of Carbajal Law, hereby stipulate and agree to extend certain discovery deadlines as set forth herein.

I. PRIOR REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS.

The Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was entered by Magistrate Cam Ferenbach on April 2, 2018. (ECF No. 14). A first extension was granted on July 31, 2018.

II. THE TIMELINESS OF THIS STIPULATION.

Pursuant to LR 26-4, "[a]ll motions or stipulations to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received by the Court no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline." The current discovery deadline is December 7, 2018. (ECF No. 14). A motion to extend deadlines in the Court's scheduling order must be supported by a showing of "good cause" for the extension. Local Rule 26-4; see also Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608-09. The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir.2000). Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists, "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Further, the Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.2002).

In addition, requests to extend a discovery deadline filed less than 21 days before the expiration of that particular deadline must be supported by a showing of excusable neglect. See Local Rule 26-4.2. The Ninth Circuit has held that "the 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." 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)).

Here, good cause exists for the requested minimal extension of ninety (90) days because the Plaintiff and Defendant seek to clarify certain issues with currently issued discovery and to continue out depositions until written discovery is concluded. Each party has issued and received certain written discovery, but additional requests and clarifications are appropriate in this matter due to the subject matter of the dispute. Each party agrees that ninety (90) days are sufficient to adequately collect the remaining information for this matter.

III. THE CURRENT DISCOVERY DEADLINES.

IV. DISCOVERY THAT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED.

To date, the Parties have served and are responding to written discovery and produced documents pursuant to FRCP 26. There are Depositions scheduled for November 30, 2018 and December 3, 2018 that will be re-noticed by the parties.

V. REMAINING DISCOVERY TO COMPLETE.

The remaining discovery to be completed consists of depositions, possible additional written discovery and third-party discovery. The third-party discovery will relate to bank records, e-mail and call/text records, casino gaming records and casino guest/stay records of Plaintiff. The parties also intend to conduct additional third-party discovery which necessitates the lengthening of the time permitted for discovery in this matter. Given the need to conduct this additional discovery, good cause exists for extending the discovery deadlines to accommodate this additional discovery. The parties have included deadlines for the amendment of pleading or adding of parties and for expert discovery. While it is not currently anticipated that amendment will be sought or expert discovery conducted, the parties wish to keep those deadlines open in the event that need for those matters arises as a result of the ongoing discovery of the parties.

The Parties are in the process of finalizing deposition dates and have agreed to complete all depositions by the deadline set forth in this Stipulation and Order.

VI. THE PROPOSED EXTENDED DEADLINES.

The Parties respectfully request that the deadlines for discovery, dispositive motions, and the joint pretrial order be extended as follows:

If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.