Peck v. City of Henderson et al

Filing 21

SCHEDULING ORDER re: 20 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 12/7/2009. Motions due by 1/7/2010. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/6/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/17/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

P

eck v. City of Henderson et al

Doc. 21

2 3 4

NORMAN H. KIRSHMAN, P.c. Nevada Bar Number: 2733 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 500
Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Anomey for Plaintiffs

5
6 7 8 MARY KA Y PECK, an individual,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

CASE NO. 2:09-cv-00872

9
10 v.

Plaintiff,

11 THE CITY OF HENDERSON, a municipality; 12 JAMES B. GIBSO , an individual; JACK CLARK, an individual; ANDY HAFEN, an 13 individual; STEVE KIRK, an individual; GERRI SCHRODER, an individual; and DOES 14 1 through 25.

[Proposed] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER

IS

Defendants.

16 I l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J 17 Plaintiff, Mary Kay Peck ("Plaintiff' or "Peck"), and Defendants The City of Henderson,

18 James B. Gibson, Jack Clark, Andy Hafen, Steve Kirk, and Gerri Schroder ("Defendants") hereby 19 submit to the Court the following stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order pursuant to 20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1(e). 21 22

1.

Procedural History
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 15, 2009 and an Amended Complaint on May

23 21,2009. Defendants filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint on June 8, 2009. Defendants 24 filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on June 25,2009. Plaintiff's Response to the 25 Motion is due on July 13,2009. A Stipulation and Order Extending Time to July 28, 2009 for 26 Plaintiff's response was filed on July 9, 2009.

27 II 28 II

Dockets.Justia.com

2. 2

Meeting
As required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1(d), a

3 26(f) conference was conducted on July 1,2009. All parties appeared by telephone. Nonnan H.
4 Kirshman, attended telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff and William E. Cooper attended 5 telephonically on behalf of Defendants.

6
7

3.

Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff and Defendants will exchange their respective Initial Disclosures no later

8 than July 15,2009.
9 10

4.

The Subjects on Which Discovery Will Be Conducted.
It is Plaintiff's position that discovery should not be stayed and will be needed on

11 Plaintiff's claims and causes of action, issues raised in pleadings, and the affinnative defenses that 12 were raised in the Answer. It is Defendants' position that all discovery should be stayed until the

13 court detennines whether the individual defendants are shielded from suit by the doctrine of

14 qualified immunity, which issue is now pending before the court by way of Defendants' Rule
15 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In addition to the foregoing, the parties may agree 16 to enter into a Stipulated Protective Order to protect and maintain the confidentiality of various

17 items of infonnation that may be sought and may be tendered during the discovery process.

18
19 20 21

5.

Issues Related to the Disclosure or Discovery of Electronically Stored Information
Plaintiffs have not alleged, and the parties do not believe, that this case involves

the use or misuse of electronic documents and/or systems. However, with respect to the production of electronically stored infonnation, to the extent feasible, the parties agree that relevant electronically stored infonnation, if any, can be exchanged by the in paper or disk fonnat.

22
23

6.

Issues Relating to Claims of Privilege or Attorney Work Product
The parties acknowledge and agree that while each is taking reasonable steps to

24
25 26

identify and prevent disclosure of any document which they believe is privileged, given the volume and nature of material being exchanged, there is a possibility that certain privileged material may be produced inadvertently. Accordingly, the parties agree that a party who produces

27

28
-2

a document protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, attorney-work product doctrine or 2 any other recognized privilege ("privileged document") without intending to waive the claim of 3 privilege associated with such document may promptly, meaning within fifteen (15) days after the

4 producing party actually discovers that such inadvertent disclosure occurred, amend its discovery

5 response and notify the other party that such document was inadvertently produced and should
6 have been withheld. Once the producing party provides such notice to the requesting party, the 7 requesting party must promptly, meaning with seventy-two (72) hours, return the specified

8 document(s) and any copies thereof. By complying with this obligation, the requesting party does
9 not waive any right to challenge the assertion of privilege and request an order of the Court

10 denying such privilege.
11 12

7.

Limits on Discovery
The parties agree that discovery will be conducted in accordance with the Federal

13 Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules of this Court without limitation or
14 modification of the same. It is Plaintiff's position that discovery should not be stayed. However,
15 it is Defendants' position that all discovery should be stayed until the court determines whether

16 the individual defendants are shielded from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which 17 issue is now pending before the court by way of Defendants' Rule I2(c) Motion for Judgment on

18 the Pleadings.
19
20

8.

Discovery Plan
Although it is Defendants' position that all discovery should be stayed until the

21 court determines whether the individual defendants are shielded from suit by the doctrine of 22 qualified immunity, which issue is now pending before the court by way of Defendants' Rule 23 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and it is Plaintiff s position that discovery should not 24 be stayed, should the court elect to allow discovery to proceed, all discovery in this case will be 25 conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules of 26 this Court pursuant to the proposed following cut-off dates: 27 (a)

Discovery Cut-Off Date. The cut-off for completion of discovery will be

28

December 7, 2009.
-3

(b) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) (d) (c)

Motions for Extension of Discovery Cut-off shall be no later than November 27,2009. Amending the Pleading and Adding Parties. The last date for filing a
motion to amend the pleadings or add parties shall be September 8, 2009.

Expert Disclosures. Initial expert disclosures shall be made by October 8,
2009. Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made thirty (30) days after the due date for expert disclosures on November 7, 2009. The parties shall have until the discovery cut-off date to take the depositions of the experts.

Dispositive Motions. Dispositive motions shall be filed thirty (30) days
after the completion of discovery on January 7, 2010.

10 11
12
(f)

Motions in Limine. Pursuant to L.R. 16-3(b), any motions in limine,
including Daubert-type motions, shall be filed and served thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of trial and oppositions shall be served fifteen
(15) days thereafter. Reply briefs will only be allowed by leave of the

13
14 15

court. (g)

16
17
18

Joint Pretrial Order. The Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed by February
6,2010, ifno dispositive motions are filed. If any dispositive motions are filed, the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the last decision on the merits.

19
20 21 22 9. (h)

Anticipated Length of Trial. The parties anticipate the length of the trial
to be ten (10) days, including jury selection.

Interim Status Report. The parties shall file an interim status report sixty (60)

23 days before the discovery cut-off on October 8, 2009.

24 II

25 II
26 II

27 II
28 II

-4

_

10.

Extensions or Modifications of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

2
Any stipulation or motion for modification or extension of t h i s discovery plan and scheduling 3
order must be made twenty (20) days before the discovery cut-off date on November 17, 2009.
4

5 Dated: July 16,2009
6
NORMAN H. KlRSHMAN, P.C.

Dated: July 16,2009
COOPER LA W OFFICE

7

II s II Norman H. Kirshman, 2733 9
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste 500 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 10
8

II s II
William E. Cooper, 2213
601 E. Bridger Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

ttorney f o r Plaintiff
11

12

Attorney f o r Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

14

15 16

____ States ________ Judge United _____Magistrate ____________
DATED:

GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge
__

DATED: July 17, 2009

17

18
19
20 21
22
23
24
25 26
27
28

-5