Donizetti v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 26

ORDER Setting Telephonic Status Conference. Status Conference set for 8/5/2010 08:45 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/21/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Donizetti v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Doc. 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOSHUA DONIZETTI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case No. 2:09-cv-02294-RCJ-PAL ORDER

The court set a hearing on the parties' Stipulated Extension for Discovery Deadline and Trial Date (Dkt. #23) on Tuesday July 20, 2010. Ryan Alexander appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Lyssa Anderson appeared on behalf of the Defendant. The parties' stipulated extension (Dkt. #23) was filed July 12, 2010­six days after the expiration of the discovery cutoff. The parties requested an additional ninety-day extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines stating they have been engaged in good faith meet and confers, and have discussed settlement proposals. Counsel for Plaintiff believes that settlement without trial is possible. During the hearing, the court canvassed counsel concerning the discovery completed to date. The Plaintiff has not engaged in any discovery. If the case does not settle, he intends to send out one set of written requests for production, requests for admissions, and interrogatories. Counsel for Plaintiff also expects to take two to three depositions. He has no plans of retaining experts. Counsel for Defendant indicated that after the court entered a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order for the parties when they failed to submit one, defense counsel served her initial disclosures on Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff's counsel has not served initial disclosures, and Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's written discovery requests. Defense counsel made an offer to settle this case, and the parties are hopeful that the matter will be resolved. However, without receiving Plaintiff's initial

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

disclosures and responses to written discovery, defense counsel cannot definitively determine what discovery is required. The stipulation to extend the deadlines was filed after the expiration of the discovery cutoff. As such, the current stipulation is actually a request to re-open discovery. Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that his client has not provided the initial disclosures, or responded to Defendant's written discovery requests. Plaintiff's counsel also acknowledged that the written discovery requests are not objectionable and require a response. The court advised counsel that it will conduct a status conference in approximately two weeks. If the parties have been unable to settle this case, a final Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order will be entered. Additionally, sanctions up to and including case dispositive sanctions may be imposed if the Plaintiff continues to refuse to serve initial disclosures and respond to Defendant's written discovery. IT IS ORDERED a status conference is set for August 5, 2010 at 8:45 a.m. Counsel may appear telephonically. Each party requesting to appear telephonically is instructed to call Jeff Miller, Courtroom Deputy, at [phone] before 4:00 p.m., August 4, 2010 to indicate the name of the party participating and a telephone number where that party may be reached. The courtroom deputy will initiate the call. Dated this 21st day of July, 2010.

________________________________________ Peggy A. Leen United States Magistrate Judge

2