Doutre v. Aranas et al
Filing
71
ORDER Granting 68 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 10/6/2015. Motions due by 11/5/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/7/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 7/24/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)
6
Patrick J. Reilly, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6103
Andrea M. Champion, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 13461
Holland & Hart LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, Second Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
Tel: (702) 669-4600
Fax: (702) 669-4650
preilly@hollandhart.com
amchampion@hollandhart.com
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1
2
3
4
5
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
SEAN T. DOUTRE,
Case No. : 2:12-cv-00772-RFB-VCF
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
STIPULATION
AND
ORDER
TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES
13
14
DR. ROMEO ARANAS, BENEDICTO
GUTIERREZ, CHERYL DRESSLER, B.
OLIVER, AND DOE DEFENDANT,
(Third
Request
–
Submitted
Compliance with LR 26-4)
in
15
Defendants.
16
STIPULATION
17
18
Plaintiff Sean T. Doutre, by and through his counsel of record, Holland & Hart LLP, and
19
Defendants Dr. Romeo Aranas, Benedicto Gutierrez, and Cheryl Dressler, by and through their
20
counsel of record, the State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General, hereby stipulate to extend
21
the deadlines for discovery within the Court’s January 6, 2015 Amended Scheduling Order, as
22
amended by the Court’s May 18, 2015 Order granting the parties’ second request to extend
23
discovery deadlines as follows:
24
25
1.
On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Order to Amend the
Scheduling Order (Dkt. 59).
26
2.
An Amended Scheduling Order was entered on January 6, 2015 (Dkt. 60).
27
3.
The Court’s Amended Scheduling Order set the discovery deadline in this action
28
for June 8, 2015.
Page 1 of 6
7905759_1
1
4.
On May 15, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline
2
(Second Request) (Dkt. 65) with the Court, requesting the discovery deadline be extended to
3
August 7, 2015.
4
5.
The Court granted that request on May 18, 2015 (Dkt. 66).
5
6.
On May 29, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Association of Counsel (Dkt. 67)
6
adding Frederick J. Perdomo as counsel for Defendants. Mr. Perdomo is substituting as counsel
7
while Ms. McKay is on maternity leave.
8
7.
Plaintiff has completed the following discovery to date:
a.
9
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff served his Initial Disclosures to
Defendants;
10
b.
11
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff served his First Set of Interrogatories to
Defendants;
12
c.
13
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff served his First Set of Requests for
Admissions to Defendants;
14
d.
15
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff served his First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents to Defendants;
16
e.
17
On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff served Carson Tahoe Regional Healthcare
18
with a Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to
19
Permit Inspection of Premises.
20
requested documents from Carson Tahoe Regional Healthcare on or about
21
May 11, 2015;
f.
22
Plaintiff subsequently received the
On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff served Valley Hospital Medical Center with a
23
Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit
24
Inspection of Premises.
25
documents from Carson Tahoe Regional Healthcare on or about May 12,
26
2015;
g.
27
Plaintiff subsequently received the requested
On April 21, 2015, Plaintiff deposed Defendant Benedicto Gutierrez at a
duly noticed deposition;
28
Page 2 of 6
7905759_1
h.
1
On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff served Dr. Syed Ahmad with a Subpoena to
2
Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action. That
3
deposition was set for May 27, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. and has been
4
subsequently continued pursuant to agreement;
i.
5
On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants with a Third Amended
6
Notice of Deposition for Defendant Dr. Romeo Aranas. That deposition
7
was set for May 18, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. and has been subsequently
8
continued pursuant to agreement;
j.
9
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures;
10
k.
11
On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff served his Second Set of Requests for
Production of Documents to Defendants;
12
l.
13
On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff served his Second Set of Interrogatories to
Defendants; and
14
m.
15
On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants with his Second
Supplement to Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures.
16
17
On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants with his First Supplement to
8.
Defendants have completed the following discovery to date:
a.
18
On December 23, 2014, Defendants served their Initial Disclosures to
Plaintiff;
19
b.
20
On March 9, 2015, Defendant Romeo Aranas served Plaintiff with his
Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories;
21
c.
22
On March 9, 2015, Defendant Benedicto Gutierrez served Plaintiff with
his Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories;
23
d.
24
On March 9, 2015, Defendant Romeo Aranas served Plaintiff with his
Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions;
25
e.
26
On March 9, 2015, Defendant Benedicto Gutierrez served Plaintiff with
his Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions;
27
f.
28
On March 9, 2015, Defendant Cheryl Dressler served Plaintiff with her
Page 3 of 6
7905759_1
Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions;
1
g.
2
On March 17, 2015, Defendants served their First Supplement to
Disclosures;
3
h.
4
On March 17, 2015, Defendants served their Responses to Plaintiff’s First
Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff;
5
i.
6
On March 24, 2015, Defendant Cheryl Dressler served her Amended
Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories;
7
j.
8
On May 5, 2015, Defendants served their Second Supplement to
Disclosures;
9
k.
10
On May 5, 2015, Defendants served Plaintiff with their Second
11
Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
12
Documents Number 12;
l.
13
Disclosures; and
14
m.
15
On May 15, 2015, Defendants deposed Plaintiff Sean T. Doutre at a duly
noticed deposition.
16
17
On May 13, 2013, Defendants served their Third Supplement to
9.
The following discovery remains to be completed:
a.
18
Plaintiff duly noticed the deposition of Dr. Syed Ahmad for May 27, 2015.
19
Pursuant to agreement, the parties have continued the deposition due to a
20
scheduling conflict and to facilitate settlement discussions.
b.
21
Plaintiff duly noticed the deposition of Defendant Dr. Romeo Aranas for
22
May 18, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. Pursuant to agreement, the parties have
23
continued the deposition to facilitate settlement discussions.
c.
24
Either Party may need to depose additional witnesses, recently discovered
through the discovery process;
25
d.
26
Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and
27
Second Set of Request for Production of Documents is currently
28
outstanding. Pursuant to agreement, the parties have agreed to continue
Page 4 of 6
7905759_1
1
the Defendants’ response deadline to a date uncertain to be agreed upon in
2
the event the parties are unable to reach a settlement.
10.
3
4
Discovery cannot be completed within the time scheduled for the following
reasons:
a.
5
The parties previously requested a sixty (60) day extension of the
6
discovery deadline to facilitate settlement discussions after the parties
7
renewed settlement discussions on May 15, 2015.
b.
8
While the parties have been engaged in settlement discussions since May,
they have been unable to reach a resolution to date.
9
c.
10
The parties continue to work towards a settlement resolution but
11
settlement discussions have been delayed due to Rick Perdomo’s recent
12
association into this case and Plaintiff’s counsel’s difficulties in reaching
13
their client.
d.
14
Accordingly, the parties need additional time to engage in settlement
discussions.
15
e.
16
In addition, even if the parties were to cease settlement discussions in the
17
near future, it would be nearly impossible to complete discovery by the
18
August 7, 2015 deadline. The parties still need to re-set the depositions of
19
Dr. Aranas and Dr. Ahmad in addition to possibly depositing additional
20
witnesses who have recently been discovered through the discovery
21
process.
11.
22
The parties propose the following schedule for the remaining discovery:
a.
23
Discovery cut-off: Discovery is currently set to close on August 7, 2015.
24
The parties hereby stipulate to extend the discovery cut-off date by sixty (60) days to October 6,
25
2015.
b.
26
Dispositive Motions: The deadline to file dispositive motions is currently
27
set for September 7, 2015. The parties hereby stipulate to extend the dispositive motion deadline
28
to November 5, 2015, which is thirty (30) days after the proposed close of discovery.
Page 5 of 6
7905759_1
c.
1
Pretrial Order: The deadline for the Court’s pretrial order is currently set
2
for October 7, 2015. The parties hereby stipulate to extend the Pretrial Order deadline to
3
December 7, 2015, thirty-two (32) days after the proposed dispositive motion deadline as the
4
thirtieth day otherwise falls on a Saturday.
d.
5
Trial: On April 8, 2015, the parties filed their Joint Interim Status Report.
6
Within the report, the parties proposed a January 2016 trial date to accommodate counsel for
7
both parties counsel’s maternity leave. The parties anticipate that because at least one party
8
intends to file a dispositive motion in this case if the matter does not settle, a January 2016 trial
9
date may not be possible.
10
11
12
12.
This extension is sought in good faith and the parties respectfully request that the
Court enter an order granting the requested extension.
DATED this 9th day of July, 2015.
13
HOLLAND & HART LLP
14
By
15
/s/ Andrea M. Champion
Patrick J. Reilly, Esq.
Andrea M. Champion, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
16
DATED this 9th day of July, 2015.
17
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
18
By
19
/s/ Frederick J. Perdomo
Frederick J. Perdomo, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants
20
ORDER
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED:
23
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7-24-2015
DATED: ________________________________
24
25
26
27
28
Page 6 of 6
7905759_1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?