Green v. High Desert State Prison Medical Department et al

Filing 82

ORDER granting 81 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Fourth Request) re Discovery re 78 Order. Discovery due by 9/4/2020. Motions due by 10/5/2020. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/4/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 5/20/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:17-cv-00090-JAD-DJA Document 81 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 4
82
05/20/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
AUSTIN T. BARNUM (Bar No. 15174)
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
555 East Washington Avenue
Suite 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Romeo Aranas, Gregory Bryan,
Alberto Buencamino, and George Leaks

10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14

FREDERIC GREEN,

15

Case No. 2:17-cv-00090-JAD-DJA

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON MEDICAL
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY

Defendants.
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-3, Plaintiff Frederic Green (“Plaintiff”), by and
through Kristen T. Gallagher, Esq., and Jason Sifers, Esq., as well as Defendants Gregory
Bryan, Romeo Aranas, Alberto Buencamino and George Leaks (collectively, “Defendants”),
by and through, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Austin T. Barnum, Deputy
Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby stipulate
and agree to extend discovery deadlines by approximately 60 days. This is the fourth
request by the parties.

28

30
31

(Fourth Request)

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00090-JAD-DJA Document 81 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 4
82
05/20/20
1

The next discovery deadline affected by this stipulation is the June 2, 2020 rebuttal

2

expert deadline. With the exception of the rebuttal expert deadline, this stipulation will be

3

received by the Court “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline,”

4

as is required by LR 26-3. With respect to the rebuttal expert deadline, the parties set forth

5

a statement of excusable neglect below

6
7

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-3, and good cause appearing therefor, the parties
hereby make the following required statements:

8

I. Discovery Completed.

9

In June and July 2018, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendants to which

10

Defendants timely responded.

11

Since pro bono counsel was appointed, Plaintiff served three subpoenas duces tecum

12

on non-parties to the case. Plaintiff recently received documents and is preparing them for

13

disclosure.

14

On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff timely served Defendants with his expert disclosures.

15

II. Discovery that remains to be completed.

16

Plaintiff intends on conducting a deposition and issuing written discovery.

17

Defendants intend on disclosing a rebuttal expert with disclosures. Defendants intend on

18

determining the need for depositions and will respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery.

19
20

III. The reasons why the discovery will not be completed within the time
set by the Scheduling Order

21

Discovery in this matter closed on August 24, 2018. ECF No. 37. On September 25,

22

2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel. ECF No.

23

67. The Parties stipulated to reopen discovery for 120 days, and this Court issued an order

24

reopening discovery on November 8, 2019. ECF No. 71. Subpoenas were served and the

25

time needed for responses prevented Plaintiff from having sufficient time to complete and

26

submit expert disclosures. Therefore, this Court granted the current extension setting the

27

due date for expert disclosures on May 4, 2020. ECF No. 78. Rebuttal experts are currently

28

30
31

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00090-JAD-DJA Document 81 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 4
82
05/20/20
1

due on June 2, 2020. Id. Defendants secured a rebuttal expert, but the time remaining to

2

submit rebuttal expert disclosures is insufficient.

3

IV.

Statement of Excusable Neglect Pursuant to LR 26-3:

Requests to

4

extend a discovery deadline filed less than 21 days before the expiration of that particular

5

deadline must be supported by a showing of excusable neglect. Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc.,

6

2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL 3975764, *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013). The determination

7

of whether excusable neglect exists turns on four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the

8

opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3)

9

the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S.

10

Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Investment Services

11

Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Excusable neglect also

12

encompasses negligence, carelessness, and inadvertent mistake. Id. at 1224.

13

Here, all four of the Bateman considerations weigh in favor of a finding of excusable neglect

14

in connection with the parties’ request to extend the rebuttal expert deadline: (i) neither

15

party will be prejudiced as both have stipulated to the requested extension; (ii) the length

16

of the delay is negligible and the stipulation will be filed 14 days before the current

17

deadline; (iii) the reason for the delay is that Defendants need additional time to finalize

18

their rebuttal expert report because of the logistical difficulties of retaining a rebuttal

19

expert, and preparing and disclosing a rebuttal expert report in 30 days given the current

20

COVID-19 closures; and (iv) contrary to the circumstances in Derosa, the parties are

21

actively conducting discovery. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court

22

finds excusable neglect exists with respect to the rebuttal expert deadline. With respect to

23

the other discovery deadlines, the parties submit this stipulation more than 21 days prior

24

to the expiration of those deadlines.

25
26
27

///

28

///

30
31

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00090-JAD-DJA Document 81 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 4
82
05/20/20
1

V. Proposed Scheduling Order

2

Therefore, Defendants request and Plaintiff stipulates to the following deadlines:1

3
EVENT

4

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
Close of Discovery
Dispositive Motions
Pretrial Order2

5
6
7

CURRENT DEADLINE
(ECF No. 78)
June 2, 2020
July 6, 2020
August 3, 2020
September 1, 2020

PROPOSED DEADLINE
July 3, 2020
September 4, 2020
October 5, 2020
November 4, 2020

8
19th
DATED this _____ day of May, 2020.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

McDONALD CARANO LLP

OFFICE OF THE NEVADA ATTORNEY
GENERAL

______________________________________
Kristen T. Gallagher (NSBN 9561)
Jason Sifers (NSBN 14273)
2300 W. Sahara Ave, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, NV 89102
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

______________________________________
AARON D. FORD (NSBN 7704)
Austin T. Barnum (NSBN 15174)
555 East Washington Ave., Suite 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Romeo Aranas,
Gregory Bryan, Alberto Buencamino, and
George Leaks

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23

May 20, 2020
Dated: _________________________________

24
25
26
27
28

30
31

Parties are not seeking an extension the following at this time, and are left out of the
above dates as a result: (1) the deadline to amend the pleadings or add parties, (2) Expert
disclosures.
2 If dispositive motions are filed, then the pre-trial order shall be due 30 days after the
ruling on the motions.
1

Page 4 of 4