Broome v. Albertsons, LLC

Filing 17

ORDER Granting 16 Stipulation for Extension/Modification of Discovery Plan. Discovery due by 11/16/2015. Motions due by 12/16/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/19/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/24/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

Case 2:14-cv-02157-RFB-GWF Document 16 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

LEW BRANDON, JR., ESQ.
Nevada Bar No.: 5880
DAVE M. BROWN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12186
TRAVIS H. DUNSMOOR, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No.: 13111
MORAN BRANDON BENDAVID MORAN
630 S. Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone]
[phone] - facsimile
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant,
ALBERTSON’S, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12

CATHI BROOME, an individual,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-02157-RFB-GWF

ALBERTSON’S, LLC, a foreign
corporation d/b/a Albertson’s; DOES I
through X; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I through X,
inclusive,

16
17
18

Defendants.

19
20
21

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF DISCOVERY
PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(THIRD REQUEST)

22

Plaintiff, CATHI BROOME, and Defendant, ALBERTSONS, LLC, by and through

23
24

their undersigned counsel, submit to the Court the following Stipulation and Order for

25

Extension/Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order pursuant to LR 26-4 (a)

26

and to Court Order Document No. 10.

27

I.

Local Rule 6-1

28

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:14-cv-02157-RFB-GWF Document 16 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 4

Under LR 6-1(b) every stipulation to extend time must inform the court of any previous

1
2
3

extensions granted and state the reason for the extension requested.
A.

The Requirement of Local Rule 6-1 Are Satisfied

4

This is the Third request for extension filed by the parties.

This extension is

5
6

requested so that Defendant may continue to compile Plaintiff’s medical records both

7

allegedly related to this matter’s subject incident and her pre-incident injuries and treatment.

8

II.

9

Local Rule 26-4(a)
Under LR 26-4 (a) a statement specifying the Discovery completed:

10

Both Plaintiff and Defendant have exchanged their initial documents and witness
11
12

disclosures, with supplements thereto.

Additionally, both Plaintiff and Defendant have

13

exchanged and responded to written discovery requests.

Defendant has subpoenaed

14

Plaintiff’s various disclosed medical providers, but is still awaiting responses from at least

15

one (1) of Plaintiff’s known treating providers. Plaintiff’s deposition was completed on

16

February 24, 2015.
17
18

III.

Local Rule 26-4(b)

19

Under LR 26-4(b) a specific description of the Discovery that remains to be completed:

20

The remaining Discovery to be completed involves initial and rebuttal expert

21

disclosures, initial and rebuttal experts depositions, Plaintiff’s treating providers, Defendant’s

22

30(b)(6) witness(es) and designated fact witnesses. Additionally, Defendant is still awaiting

23
24

responses from at least one (1) remaining provider. Lastly, Defendant is in the process of

25

determining the need for a FRCP Rule 35 exam, which is based upon receipt and

26

confirmation of Plaintiff’s complete pre- and post-incident treatment history.

27
28

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:14-cv-02157-RFB-GWF Document 16 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 4

1

IV.

2
3

Local Rule 26-4(c)
Under LR 26-4(c) the reasons why Discovery remaining was not completed within the

time limits set by the Discovery Plan:

4

Defendant had delayed responses to subpoenas from at least three (3) of Plaintiff’s
5
6

known treating providers, and is still awaiting responses from at least one (1) remaining

7

provider. Defendant has been diligent in attempting to secure responses to all its subpoenas,

8

however, at least one (1) response to these subpoenas remains outstanding. Additionally, due

9

to the delayed subpoena responses from Plaintiff’s medical providers, Defendant has not

10

been able to completely investigate Plaintiff’s complete medical history. Finally, due to the

11
12

existence of possible pre-existing medical conditions, an FRCP Rule 35 Exam may be

13

necessary, after receipt of Plaintiff’s complete medical history.

14

V.

15

Local Rule 26-4(d)
Under LR 26-4(d) a proposed schedule for completing all remains Discovery:

16

(i)

Discovery cutoff dates: Extend the current Discovery cutoff date from October

17
18
19
20
21
22

16, 2015 to a Discovery cutoff date of November 16, 2015;
(ii)

Expert witness disclosures from August 17, 2015 to a new date of September 16,

2015;
(iii)

Rebuttal expert witness disclosures from September 18, 2015 to October 19,

2015;

23
24
25
26
27

(iv)

Submittal of the Joint Pre-Trial Order (if no Dispositive Motions are filed) to be

extended to January 19, 2015;
(v)

Interim Status Report from August 17, 2015 to a new date of September 16,

2015; and

28

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:14-cv-02157-RFB-GWF Document 16 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3

(vi)

Final date to file Dispositive Motions extended from November 16, 2015 to

December 16, 2015.
Therefore, good cause existing, counsel jointly request that this Honorable Court allow

4

them the above proposed extended Discovery dates.
5
6
7

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2015.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN NADIG,
CHTD.

MORAN BRANDON BENDAVID
MORAN

_/s/ Ben Nadig, Esq.________________
BEN NADIG, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9876
Law Office of Benjamin Nadig, Chtd.
324 S. Third Street, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone]
[phone] – facsimile
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff,
CATHI BROOME

_/s/ Lew Brandon, Jr., Esq. ___________
LEW BRANDON, JR., ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 5880
DAVE M. BROWN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12186
TRAVIS H. DUNSMOOR, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No.: 13111
630 S. Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant,
ALBERTSONS, LLC

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
U.S. Magistrate Judge
July 24, 2015
Dated:_______________________

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 4 of 4