Opinion

JKG Fitness, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc.

Court
District Court, D. Nevada
Filed
Dec 11, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 33.3%

The opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JKG Fitness, Inc.,

2:23-cv-01800-JAD-MDC

4 Plaintiff(s),

ORDER:

5 vs. GRANTING MOTION (ECF No. 33) and

DENYING STIPULATION (ECF No. 37) AS

6 Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc., et al,

MOOT

7 Defendant(s).

8 Pending before the Court are a Motion for Extension of Time (“Motion”) (ECF No. 33) by

9 defendant Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc. and a Stipulation for Extension of Time (“Stipulation”)

10 (ECF No. 37). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion and DENIES the

11 Stipulation as moot.

12 DISCUSSION

13 Defendant Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc seeks to both extend and reopen discovery

14 deadlines. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff opposes defendant’s Motion. ECF No. 35.

15 A request to extend discovery deadlines must include a statement specifying the discovery

16 completed, a specific description of the discovery that remains, the reasons why the subject deadline

17 cannot be met, and a proposed schedule for completing the outstanding discovery. Local Rule (“LR”)

18 26-3. To prevail on a request to amend a scheduling order under Rule 16(b), a movant must establish

19 good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good

20 cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of

21 diligence. Id. at 609. “The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the

22 entire period of time already allowed.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177

23 (D. Nev. 2022).

24 Defendant asserts that it has been diligent in pursuing discovery and that good cause exists to

25 extend the discovery deadlines. Defendant argues that third-party discovery is relevant to its affirmative

1 || defenses. ECF No. 33 at 5-6. Defendant further argues that the remaining discovery cannot be completed

2 || within the current deadlines. /d. at 7. The Court finds that good cause exists to extend and reopen the

3 || discovery deadlines.

4 Therefore, the Court will adopt defendant’s proposed new deadlines. The new discovery

5 || deadlines will be as follows:

6 e Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties: January 28, 2025;

7 e Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: March 13, 2025;

8 e Disclosure Closes: May 1, 2025;

9 e Dispositive Motions: June 26, 2025;

10 e Pre-Trial Order, if no Dispositive Motions: July 29, 2025

11 || If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30

12 || days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order.

13

14 ACCORDINGLY,

15 IT IS ORDERED that:

16 1. The Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED.

M7 2. The Stipulation for Extension of Time (ECF No. 37) is DENIED AS MOOT.

18

19

20 DATED this 11" day of December 2024.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4p _

Yi & □

23 Hog Manimiligh’ D lier □

UMited States ey Judge

25

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.