ORDER

(Docket No. 34)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to extend various deadlines in the scheduling order. Docket No. 34. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 36, 37. The motion is properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.

As an initial matter, the motion seeks to revive the deadline to amend the pleadings that expired months ago. Docket No. 34 at 8; see also Docket No. 21 at 4 (setting that deadline at January 12, 2018). Meaningful argument has not been presented as to why that deadline should be revived and, therefore, that aspect of the motion will be denied. See, e.g., Kor Media Grp. LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013).1

The motion also seeks a 78-day extension to the discovery cutoff and subsequent deadlines. A request to extend those deadlines must be supported by a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Local Rule 26-4. Defendant argues that an extension is needed based on, inter alia, late supplemental discovery responses received. See, e.g., Docket No. 37 at 2-3. Plaintiff argues that Defendant back-loaded its discovery requests for the twilight of the discovery period, which undermines the required showing of diligence. See, e.g., Docket No. 36 at 5-6. There is some merit to each party's argument. Given the circumstances, the Court finds good cause has been shown for a 45-day extension, and deadlines are EXTENDED as follows:

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.