Estate of Barry Isom v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 43

ORDER Granting 42 Stipulation for Extension of Scheduling Deadlines and Joint Request for Revised Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 8/31/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

‚

Marquiz Law Office

2

Professional Corporation

3

3088 Via Flaminia Court
Henderson, NV 89052
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

4

‚

5
6

Craig A. Marquiz, Esq.
NV Bar #7437
[e-mail]

7
8

Justice Law Center

9

1100 S. Tenth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

10
11

13

Bret O. Whipple, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6168
Alissa C. Engler, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11940
[e-mail]

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16
Case No.:2:14-cv-00475-JAD-VCF
17
18

THE ESTATE OF BARRY ISOM, by and
through its Executrix, Mary Love-Isom;
Jaimee Isom Newberry and Kimberlee Isom
Grindstaff;

19
Plaintiffs,
20
v.
21
22
23

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants,

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING
DEADLINES AND JOINT REQUEST
FOR REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
(Fourth Request)

24
25
26

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1, 26-4, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the parties stipulate, subject

27

to this Court’s approval, the deadlines in the approved discovery schedule be extended for thirty

28

(30) days for the reasons noted below.

1

1.

Status Report. This request is made 41 days before the current close of

2

discovery, which is set for October 9, 2015. Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1(b) and 26-4, this request

3

is timely in that it is made before the discovery cutoff. However, it is not timely in that it is made

4

less than 21 days before the deadline of Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert disclosures, which is set for

5

September 4, 2015. As discussed more fully below, the parties’ stipulation should still be

6

approved because this stipulation is being filed six (6) days before the deadline. The Defendant’s

7

have produced a medical expert report for which Plaintiff’s will require more than thirty (30)

8

days to respond. Plaintiff’s economic expert is also requiring a copy of Plaintiff’s medical

9

expert’s rebuttal report, which will require more time as well. The Court granted the first,

10

second, and third extensions of discovery deadlines in this case on January 12, 2015 (ECF No.

11

27), April 24, 2015 (ECF No. 34), and July 22, 2015 (ECF No. 40).

12

2.

Status/Discovery Completed. On August 14, 2014, the parties held a conference

13

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26(f). On August 29, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling Order (ECF

14

No. 21). Pursuant to the Scheduling Orders (ECF Nos. 27, 34, and 40) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

26(a)(1), the parties exchanged initial disclosures and significant discovery has been completed,

16

including the exchange of discovery requests, and the retention of experts.

17

The parties have further completed the following discovery:

18

•

September 10, 2014: Defendant served Plaintiffs with interrogatories and
requests for production.

•

October 31, 2014: Plaintiffs served responses to Defendant’s interrogatories and
requests for production.

•

November 20, 2014: Defendant and Plaintiffs met and conferred regarding
Plaintiffs’ responses.

•

December 8, 2014: Defendant’s counsel and Defendant’s accident
reconstructionist consultant conducted an inspection of the motorcycle involved
in the accident at issue in Panaca, Nevada.

•

December 11, 2014: Plaintiffs served some supplemental discovery responses in
accordance with the parties’ meet and confer.

•

December 26, 2014: Plaintiffs served Defendant with interrogatories and requests
for production of documents.

•

December 2014-April 2015: Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of six (6) nonparty witnesses.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

1

•

January 7, 2015: Defendant and Plaintiffs met and conferred regarding still
outstanding supplemental discovery responses, including documentation of
benefits provided to Plaintiffs’ economist expert.

•

January 11, 2015: Plaintiffs deposed Vanessa Van Zerr, driver of the government
vehicle.

•

January 12, 2015: Plaintiffs deposed Nelson Lau, passenger in the government
vehicle.

•

January 22, 2015: Plaintiffs deposed former Nevada Highway Patrol (“NHP”)
Officer John Cunag.

•

February 4, 2015: Defendant served discovery responses and its Third
Supplemental Disclosures.

9

•

February 18, 2015: Defendant served supplemental discovery responses.

10

•

March 12, 2015: Plaintiffs deposed Irini Lamkin, passenger in the government
vehicle.

•

March 17, 2015 and March 30, 2015: Defendant emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel
regarding the status of supplemental discovery responses.

13

•

March 31, 2015: Defendant served its Fourth Supplemental Disclosures.

14

•

April 14, 2015: Plaintiffs served their Fourth Supplemental Disclosures.

15

•

April 20, 2015: Plaintiffs served their Fifth Supplemental Disclosures.

16

•

April 23, 2015: Plaintiffs deposed NHP Officer Alan Davidson.

17

•

May 19, 2015: Defendant deposed Plaintiff Mary Love-Isom.

18

•

May 21, 2015: Defendant deposed Plaintiff Jaimee Newberry.

19

•

June 3, 2015: Defendant deposed Plaintiff Kimberlee Grindstaff.

20

•

June 26, 2015: Plaintiffs served Defendant with their Expert Witness Disclosure
Statement and Reports.

•

August 10, 2015: Defendant served Plaintiffs with their Expert Witness
Disclosure Statement and Reports.

3.

Discovery remaining. The parties’ remaining discovery is limited to Plaintiff’s

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

11
12

21
22
23
24
Expert Rebuttal reports currently due on September 4, 2015.
25
4.

Reasons for extension. Plaintiff was not anticipating a Medical Exert Report

26
from Defendant’s, therefore, did not have a medical expert of their own lined up to prepare a
27
rebuttal report. The parties are requesting an additional thirty (30) days for the remaining rebuttal
28
-3-

1

expert disclosure deadlines, and do not seek to change any other remaining discovery deadlines.

2

The parties stipulate to this extension in good faith and not for the purpose of unnecessarily

3

delaying the proceedings.

4
5

5.

Revised discovery schedule.1 The parties stipulate and agree to the following

revised discovery plan and ask that the Court adopt it as the revised scheduling order in this case.

6

A.

Expert Rebuttal Disclosures: Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures were served

7

on June 26, 2015. Defendant’s expert disclosures were served on August 10, 2015; and Plaintiffs

8

may provide solely contradictory or rebuttal expert disclosures by October 4, 2015, which is 5

9

days before discovery cutoff.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2015.

10
11

DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney

JUSTICE LAW CENTER
MARQUIZ LAW OFFICE, PC

/s/ Krystal J. Rosse
BLAINE T. WELSH, ESQ.
KRYSTAL J. ROSSE, ESQ.

/s/ Alissa C. Engler,
BRET O. WHIPPLE, ESQ.
CRAIG MARQUIZ, ESQ.
ALISSA C. ENGLER, ESQ.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED:

17
18

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8-31-2015
DATED:___________________________

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(C) deadlines falling on a weekend or legal holiday “run until the
next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday”
-4-