ORDER

(Docket No. 28)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Discovery is set to close on February 27, 2018. Docket No. 19. On February 22, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the discovery cutoff. Docket No. 28. A request to modify the scheduling order must be supported by a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-4. The good cause inquiry centers on the movant's diligence and, more particularly, whether 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, 609 (9th Cir. 2000). The pending stipulation indicates that a scheduling conflict required the re-noticing of East Cactus' deposition to March 1, 2018. Docket No. 28 at 3. While scant detail is provided, such reason suffices to extend the discovery cutoff to March 1, 2018. The stipulation also indicates that East Cactus would like to notice U.S. Bank's deposition, but has not done so yet. See id. No showing has been made why that deposition could not have been taken by the discovery cutoff had East Cactus acted with reasonable diligent. As such, good cause has not been shown. Moreover, no showing has been made why the discovery cutoff must be extended for 30 days to conduct that deposition, as depositions are routinely scheduled with ten-days' notice or less. See, e.g., Reddy v. Precyse Solutions LLC, 2015 WL 2081429, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2015) ("courts generally find that one week to ten days' notice is reasonable" (collecting cases)).

In short, the stipulation fails to meet the basic standard for an extension and, furthermore, provides no justification to the 30-day extension sought. Nonetheless, as a one-time courtesy to the parties, the Court will GRANT the stipulation in part and EXTEND the discovery cutoff to March 14, 2018. The other deadlines in the scheduling order remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.