Johnson v. Gentry et al

Filing 206

ORDER Granting 205 Stipulation for Extension of Time. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 10/7/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 8/29/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 206 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 4

1

5

FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 6974
[e-mail]
EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 11956
[e-mail]
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Telephone:
702.382.2101
Facsimile:
702.382.8135

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson

2
3
4

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

7

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

JAMES DZURENDA; FRANK DREESEN;
REGINA BARRETT; JOSEPH LEWIS;
TIMOTHY KNATZ; DAVID WILLIS AND
JO GENTRY,

14
15

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE TO
FILE A JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
AND SCHEDULING ORDER
REGARDING REOPENING
DISCOVERY
(FIRST REQUEST)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, Lausteveion Johnson (“Plaintiff”), by and through his appointed counsel, Frank

18

M. Flansburg, III, Esq., and Emily A. Ellis, Esq., of the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,

19

LLP, and Defendants, James Dzurenda, Frank Dreesen, Regina Barrett, Joseph Lewis, Timothy

20

Knatz, David Willis, and Jo Gentry (“Defendants”, and together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”) by

21

and through their counsel Aaron D. Ford, Esq., and Austin T. Barnum, Esq., hereby submit this

22

Joint Stipulation and Order to Continue the Deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling

23

Order Regarding Reopening Discovery.

24
25

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

26

On August 2, 2022, this Court held a status conference in this matter (the “Status

27

Conference”). During the Status Conference, the Parties informed the Court that they were working

28
24600108.3

Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 206 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 4

1

together to agree upon the reopening of discovery and the parameters of the same. In light of this,

2

the Court ordered the Parties to work together and file, on or before August 26, 2022, either (i) a

3

stipulation to reopen discovery, which would include a proposed revised discovery plan, or (ii) a

4

joint motion with competing proposals due. Following the Status Conference, the Parties worked

5

diligently to agree upon the terms of a stipulation to reopen discovery, including engaging in written

6

meet and confer efforts as well as lengthy personal telephonic conferences. As a result of these

7

good faith meet and confer efforts, the Parties have orally agreed to certain terms for reopening

8

discovery.

9

However, the Parties have not had the opportunity to formalize the agreement and prepare

10

a stipulation by the Court ordered deadline. That is, counsel for Defendants recently received orders

11

from the military that he would be deployed for three weeks, starting August 26, 2022, during

12

which time he will not be able to participate in this case. Additionally, counsel for Plaintiff, Troy

13

Domina, left the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, with his last of August 26,

14

2022. Because of the foregoing, the Parties require additional time to formalize the stipulation to

15

reopen discovery and hereby request that the Court extend such deadline to October 7, 2022.

16

Moreover, the instant stipulation is being filed after the expiration of the August 26th deadline

17

because there was a misunderstanding as to what day was Defendants’ counsel’s last day in the

18

office, and counsel had already left for duty before the stipulation could be agreed upon and

19

submitted to the Court.

20

II.

21

LEGAL DISCUSSION
A.

22

EXTENDING TIME.

(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the
court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request
is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because of excusable neglect.

23
24
25
26

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).1

27
1

28

LR IA 6-1(a): “A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the
extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the
24600108.3
-2-

Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 206 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 4

1

The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive

2

flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement is

3

sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497

4

U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see

5

also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or.

6

2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of

7

Civil Procedure is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases

8

are tried on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010).

9

Regarding “good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across

10

procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux

11

Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992);

12

Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987)).

13

Based on the foregoing, the Parties submit that excusable neglect exists surrounding the

14

timing of the instant request and that good cause exists to grant the requested extension. As such,

15

the Parties hereby stipulate and request the Court grant them an extension of the deadline for the

16

parties to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Regarding Reopening Discovery to

17

October 7, 2022.

18

...

19

...

20

...

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

court granted.” Further, a “stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file an opposition or
reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion, must state in its opening
paragraph the filing date of the subject motion or the date of the subject hearing.” LR IA 6-1(c).
24600108.3
-3-

Case 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Document 206 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 4

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court

3

continue the deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Regarding Reopening

4

Discovery to October 7, 2022.

5

DATED this 29th day of August, 2022

DATED this 29th day of August, 2022

6

BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP

7

STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

8

BY: /s/ Emily A. Ellis
FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ.
EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ.

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson

BY: _/s/ Austin T. Barnum
m
AARON D. FORD, Attorney General
AUSTIN T. BARNUM Deputy
Attorney General

10
Attorney s at Law
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

1

Attorneys for Defendants Regina Barrett,
Frank Dreesen, James Dzurenda, Timothy
Knatz, Joseph Lewis, and David Willis

11
12
13

ORDER

14
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the

16

foregoing stipulation is approved and the deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and

17

Scheduling Order Regarding Discovery currently scheduled for August 26, 2022,

18

is VACATED and rescheduled for October 7, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

DATE: August 29, 2022

23
24
25
26
27
28
24600108.3

-4-