Hodges et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 34

ORDER Granting 33 Stipulation. Discovery due by 10/26/2015. Motions due by 11/25/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/24/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/14/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

Case 2:13-cv-02014-JCM-NJK Document 33 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CAL J. POTTER, III, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1988
C. J. POTTER, IV, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13225
POTTER LAW OFFICES
1125 Shadow Lane
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
JOSEPH P. REIFF, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 006469
325 South Third Street, #22
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13

ANTOINE HODGES, and ANNETTE
HODGES, husband and wife;

14
Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-2014-JCM-NJK

15
vs.
16
17
18
19
20
21

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a political subdivison of the
State of Nevada; SHERIFF DOUGLAS
GILLESPIE, individually and as policy
maker of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department; OFFICER JASON EVANS ,
individually; and DOE OFFICERS 1 through 10,
inclusive;
Defendants.
________________________________________/

22
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
23
(Fourth Request)
24
Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of
25
record, hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend discovery in the above-captioned case
26
for ninety-one (91) days, up to and including Monday, October 26, 2015.
27
...
28

Case 2:13-cv-02014-JCM-NJK Document 33 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 5

In addition, the parties request that the expert disclosures1, rebuttal expert disclosures,

1
2

dispositive motions and pretrial order be extended in accordance with the discovery extension as

3

outlined herein. In support of this Stipulation and Request, the parties state as follows:

4

DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE

5
6

The parties have exchanged their initial disclosures. The Plaintiffs have produced five
supplemental disclosures; the Defendants have produced five supplemental disclosures.

7

Defendants served and Plaintiffs have responded to the following written discovery

8

requests:

9

•

First and Second sets of Interrogatories to Antoine Hodges;

10

•

First, Second, and Third sets of Requests for Production to Antoine Hodges;

11

•

First and Second sets of Interrogatories to Annette Hodges;

12

•

First, Second, and Third sets of Requests for Production to Annette Hodges; and

13

Plaintiffs served and Defendants have responded to the following written discovery

14

requests:

15

•

First set of Interrogatories; and

16

•

First and Second sets of Requests for Production.

17

•

Supplemental Set of Requests for Production, which are awaiting responses. The

18

parties must meet and confer regarding the Defendants’ requested protective

19

order, which will take place during the week of May 18, 2015, after Defendants’

20

counsel has finished trial and Ninth Circuit Oral argument.

21

...

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties recognize that they are requesting an extension of the expert disclosure deadline inside of the
twenty-one (21) day period as set forth in LR 26-4. As such, the parties submit that excusable neglect exists to
permit granting the instant requested extension. In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following
factors: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether
the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and
(4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See, Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S.
380, 395 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). Twenty-one (21) days ago the parties believed they were on track
for the expert disclosure deadline, but since then have realized additional discovery is necessary prior to disclosing
their experts. This extension request is made in good faith, jointly by the parties, and not for the purposes of
delay. Trial in this matter has not yet been set. Moreover, since this request is a joint request, neither party will be
prejudiced.

2

Case 2:13-cv-02014-JCM-NJK Document 33 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

The parties have also supplemented responses to written discovery in an effort to work
with each other and avoid motions to compel.
Defendants have served nineteen (19) COR deposition subpoenas.
DISCOVERY REMAINING
The following recitation of discovery to be completed is not intended to be limiting, but it

6

is set forth to advise the Court of the current remaining discovery. The parties must conduct the

7

following discovery:

8

•

The parties must be deposed.

9

•

The parties must disclose and depose experts and rebuttal experts.

10

•

The parties must depose any expert/rebuttal experts, 30(b)(6) witnesses, and/or

11
12
13
14
15

percipient witnesses.
•

The parties need to continue supplementing documents and disclosing information
as it is received.

WHY SUCH REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED
The parties aver, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, that good cause exists for the requested

16

extension. The parties agree that, pending this Court's approval, extension of remaining

17

discovery deadlines is appropriate.

18

The parties have been working diligently on discovery in this complex and document-

19

intensive matter. Counsel for both parties have been involved with trials and appeal oral

20

arguments that have prevented them from being able to scheduled depositions and/or extensively

21

confer regarding discovery matters. The parties have continued to supplement responses to

22

written discovery and produce supplemental disclosures in an effort to work with each other and

23

avoid motions to compel. In fact, the parties must meet and confer regarding the Defendants’

24

requested protective order, which will take place during the week of May 18, 2015, after

25

Defendants’ counsel has finished trial and Ninth Circuit Oral argument.

26

This extension request is made in good faith, jointly by the parties, to allow the parties to

27

conduct the discovery necessary in this matter. Trial in this matter has not yet been set and

28

dispositive motions have not yet been filed. As such, this extension will not delay this case.
3

Case 2:13-cv-02014-JCM-NJK Document 33 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 5

1

Moreover, since this request is a joint request, neither party will be prejudiced. In fact, the

2

extension will benefit the parties in allowing them to properly litigate their case.

3

CURRENT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY DEADLINES

4

SCHEDULED EVENT

CURRENT DEADLINE

PROPOSED DEADLINE

5

Interim Status Report

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Thursday, August 27, 2015

6

Disclose Experts

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Thursday, August 27, 2015

7

Rebuttal Experts

Monday, June 29, 2015

Monday, September 28, 2015

8

Discovery Cut-Off

Monday, July 27, 2015

Monday, October 26, 2015

Dispositive Motions

Wed., August 26, 2015

Wed., November 25, 2015

Pretrial Order

Friday, September 25, 2015

Thurs., December 24, 2015

9
10
11
12

...

13
14

...

15
16

...

17
18

...

19
20

...

21
22

...

23
24

...

25
26

...

27
28

...

4

Case 2:13-cv-02014-JCM-NJK Document 33 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 5

1

This is the fourth request for extension of time in this matter. This request for an

2

extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or other purpose of delay. Rather, it is

3

sought by the parties solely for the purpose of allowing sufficient time to conduct discovery in

4

this case and adequately prepare their respective cases for trial. The parties respectfully submit

5

that the reasons set forth above constitute compelling reasons for the extension.

6

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend the discovery

7

period as outlined in the table above.

8

DATED this 13th day of May, 2015.

DATED this 13th day of May, 2015.

9

POTTER LAW OFFICES
JOSEPH P. REIFF, ESQ.

KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW
GRONAUER & FIORENTINO

By /s/ C. J. Potter, IV, Esq.
CAL J. POTTER, III, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1988
C. J. POTTER, IV, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13225
1125 Shadow Lane
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102

By
/s/ Lyssa S. Anderson, Esq.
LYSSA S. ANDERSON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 5781
8345 West Sunset Road, Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Attorney for Defendants

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JOSEPH P. REIFF, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 006469
325 South Third Street, #22
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17
18
19
ORDER
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS
WILL BE GRANTED.

21
22

May 14, 2015
________________
DATED

________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
5