Opinion
2:22-cv-02097-JCM-NJK
02-17-2023
INGA HAKAN, Plaintiffs, v. MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER
[DOCKET NO. 11]
Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to the complaint by 30 days. Docket No. 11.
A request to extend deadlines must be supported by a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).
Defendant has already had two months to prepare a response to the complaint. See Docket No. 8. The instant request is predicated almost entirely on the fact that counsel has been busy attending to other matters, Docket No. 11 at 2, but an attorney taking on an unmanageable caseload is assuredly not good cause for an extension, e.g., Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2022 WL 4181415, at *4 (D. Nev. Sept. 13, 2022). As a one-time courtesy, the Court will allow an extension of seven days.
The existence of settlement discussions is also a routine aspect of federal litigation, see, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)(2), and does not generally constitute good cause for an extension, e.g., Williams, 2022 WL 4181415, at *5.
Accordingly, the stipulation is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The deadline to respond to the complaint is EXTENDED to February 27, 2023. The Court is not inclined to grant further extension requests. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2) (a scheduling order should generally be issued within 90 days of service or 60 days from a defendant's appearance).
The stipulation references an extension to the briefing schedule for a forthcoming motion to dismiss, Docket No. 11 at 2, a request that is not properly before the Court, see Local Rule IC 2-2(b) (separate requests must be filed separately). The Court does not express any opinion herein as to that briefing schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.