Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-02716-RFB-NJK
07-21-2017
ROBIN NOVOTNY, Plaintiff(s), v. OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, LLC, Defendant(s).
ORDER (Docket No. 19)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend deadlines. Docket No. 19. Defendant filed a response in opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 22, 26. The Court finds this matter properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to extend is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. STANDARDS
District courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery and enforcing discovery deadlines. See, e.g., Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 2006). To prevail on a request to amend a scheduling order under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a movant must establish "good cause" for doing so. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Local Rule 26-4. The party seeking to amend the scheduling order bears the burden of establishing good cause. See Werbicky v. Green Tree Serv., LLC, 2014 WL 5470466, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2014); see also Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012). 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. "[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief." Id. While prejudice to the opposing party may also be considered, where the movant "fail[s] to show diligence, 'the inquiry should end.'" Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1295 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
Requests to extend deadlines filed after the deadlines' expiration also require a showing of excusable neglect. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 26-4.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Deadline to Amend
The deadline to amend the pleadings expired in this case on March 1, 2017. Docket No. 11 at 2. Plaintiff seeks to reopen that deadline to facilitate the filing of an amended complaint. See Docket No. 19 at 7. A party is not precluded from filing a motion for leave to amend solely because the deadline set forth in the scheduling order has lapsed. When a party moves to amend the pleadings after the expiration of the deadline established in the scheduling order, courts review the motion to amend through a two-step process. First, courts treat the motion as seeking to amend the scheduling order, which is governed by the "good cause" standard outlined in Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Second, if "good cause" has been established under Rule 16(b)(4), courts will then examine whether amendment is proper under the standards outlined in Rule 15(a)(2).
Rather than addressing these issues piecemeal, the Court finds it better practice for a plaintiff to file a single motion addressing both standards.
B. Expert Disclosures Deadlines
Plaintiff next seeks to extend the initial and rebuttal expert disclosure deadlines, which expired prior to filing the instant motion to extend. See Docket No. 15 at 3 (setting initial expert disclosure deadline at May 31, 2017, and rebuttal expert disclosures at June 30, 2017). It appears that extending these deadlines is unnecessary. Plaintiff's counsel represents that no new expert needs to be designated, but rather that one expert may need to supplement his opinion based on new information obtained through discovery. Docket No. 19 at 9. Parties have a duty to supplement expert reports if they learn the report is incomplete or inaccurate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). An extension of the discovery deadlines is not required for an expert to supplement his opinion; "[g]enerally speaking, supplementation of an expert report is proper when it is based on new information obtained after the expert deadline and the supplemental report was served before the time for pretrial disclosures." See, e.g., Searcy v. Esurance Insurance Co., 2016 WL 4149964, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2016) (citing Colony Ins. Co. v. Colo. Cas. Ins., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72616, at *4 (D. Nev. May 28, 2014). To the extent Plaintiff believes proper circumstances exist, such a supplementation should be made without seeking Court intervention to alter the relevant deadlines. In the event Defendant believes the supplementation is improper, the parties should resolve that dispute through the meet-and-confer process and, if necessary, through motion practice.
C. Discovery Cutoff and Subsequent Deadlines
The discovery cutoff is set to expire on July 31, 2017. Docket No. 15 at 2. Defendant does not oppose a 30-day extension to the discovery cutoff limited to conducting certain depositions. Docket No. 22 at 5. Plaintiff seeks a 90-day extension both to conduct those depositions and follow-up discovery. Docket No. 19 at 8. The Court finds sufficient cause exists to extend the discovery period generally (i.e., not limited to the identified depositions).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the pending motion to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
• The request to extend the deadline to amend the pleadings is DENIED as unnecessary. Plaintiff shall file a motion for leave to amend that addresses the two-step process outlined above. The Court expresses no opinion herein as to the merits of that motion, either with respect to Rule 16(b)(4) or Rule 15(a)(2).
• The request to extend the deadline to supplement expert reports is DENIED as unnecessary. To the extent the circumstances so warrant, Plaintiff shall serve a supplemental expert report. If the parties disagree whether that supplementation is
proper, they shall resolve that dispute through the normal process. The Court expresses no opinion herein as to whether supplementation is proper.
• The request to extend the discovery cutoff and subsequent deadlines is GRANTED. The Court SETS the following deadlines:
• Discovery cutoff: October 27, 2017
• Dispositive motions: November 27, 2017
• Joint proposed pretrial order: December 27, 2017
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 21, 2017
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge