Matthews et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Filing
35
ORDER granting 29 Stipulation re Discovery. Discovery due by 12/3/2018. Motions due by 1/2/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/1/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LYSSA S. ANDERSON
Nevada Bar No. 5781
RYAN W. DANIELS
Nevada Bar No. 13094
KAEMPFER CROWELL
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: (702) 792-7000
Fax:
(702) 796-7181
landerson@kcnvlaw.com
rdaniels@kcnvlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
JAMES IIAMS, individually and AMANDA
MATTHEWS, individually,
CASE NO.:
2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH
12
Plaintiffs,
13
vs.
14
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the
State of Nevada; SERGEANT JUSTIN
BRYERS; OFFICER RICHARD NELSON;
OFFICER JONATHAN CARRINGTON;
OFFICER LUKAS FERRIS; and DOE
OFFICERS I-XX,
15
16
17
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DISCOVERY
(First Request)
Defendants.
18
19
8345 West Sunset Road
Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), by and through its
21
KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW
GRONAUER & FIORENTINO
20
counsel, Lyssa Anderson, Esq., of the law firm of Kaempfer Crowell, and James Iiams and
22
Amanda Matthews (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, Jared Richards, Esq. of Clear
23
Counsel Law Group hereby stipulate and agree that the discovery cut-off date of September 4,
24
2018, be continued for a period of ninety (90) days up to and including December 3, 2018, for
2177597_1.doc 6943.146
Page 1 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 2 of 6
1
the purpose of allowing the newly named Defendants to be served and respond to the Amended
2
Complaint, to allow the parties to complete written discovery, to retain and disclose expert
3
witnesses, and to take depositions of the parties and third-party witnesses.
DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE
4
5
Defendant, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, (“LVMPD”)
6
has provided its initial Rule 26(f) Disclosures and its First Supplement to Rule 26 Disclosures to
7
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have provided their Rule 26 Disclosures to LVMPD.
8
LVMPD served its First Interrogatories on Plaintiffs which were responded to. LVMPD
9
also served Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents on each
10
Plaintiff. Those responses are currently due July 19, 2018 and July 26, 2018.
DISCOVERY YET TO BE COMPLETED
11
12
Plaintiffs were recently given leave to file an Amended Complaint adding several
13
individual LVMPD Officers as Defendants. The Amended Complaint was filed on July 2, 2018
14
and Summonses were issued for the individual Officers. Plaintiffs have not yet served the newly
15
named Defendants and LVMPD has not filed a response to the Amended Complaint.
16
Plaintiffs will respond to the outstanding Requests for Admissions and Requests for
17
Production of Documents by LVMPD. Plaintiffs will serve written discovery on LVMPD and
18
the newly named Defendants once they make an appearance in the case. The parties will provide
19
additional documents and will take the depositions of the named parties and possibly some third-
20
party witnesses. The parties will retain expert witnesses and disclose expert reports.
8345 West Sunset Road
Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW
GRONAUER & FIORENTINO
21
REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED
22
As set out above, the Plaintiffs were recently permitted by the Court to amend their
23
Complaint to add additional Defendants. The newly named Defendants have not yet been served
24
and have not yet made an appearance. With the addition of new Defendants, the scope of
2177597_1.doc 6943.146
Page 2 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 3 of 6
1
discovery has changed. The parties have been diligent in engaging in discovery, however, based
2
upon the procedural history, the parties require additional time to conduct discovery.
PROPOSED EXTENDED DEADLINES
3
4
5
Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated and respectfully requested that this Court enter an
order as follows:
6
(A)
7
That the current discovery cut-off date of September 4, 2018, be extended for a period of
8
9
Discovery Deadline.
ninety (90) days, up to and including December 3, 2018.
(B)
Experts and Rebuttal Experts.
10
The parties, and each of them, shall disclose their experts to each other at least sixty (60)
11
days before the discovery cut-off date, or by October 4, 2018. The parties, and each of them,
12
shall disclose rebuttal experts at least thirty (30) days after the initial date for disclosure of
13
experts, or by November 5, 2018.
14
(C)
Dispositive Motions.
15
All pretrial motions, including but not limited to, discovery motions, motions to dismiss,
16
motions for summary judgment, and all other dispositive motions shall be filed and served no
17
later than thirty (30) days after the close of discovery, which is by January 2, 2019.
Under LR 16-3(b), any motions in limine, including Daubert type motions, shall be filed
20
and served thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of Trial. Oppositions shall be filed and
21
8345 West Sunset Road
Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
(D)
19
KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW
GRONAUER & FIORENTINO
18
Motions in Limine/Daubert Motions.
served and the motion submitted for decision fourteen (14) days thereafter. Reply briefs will be
22
allowed only with leave of the Court.
23
24
2177597_1.doc 6943.146
Page 3 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 4 of 6
1
(E)
Pretrial Order.
2
Pursuant to LR 26(1)(e)(5) the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed with this Court no later
3
than thirty (30) days after the date set for filing dispositive motions, which shall be by
4
February 1, 2019, unless dispositive motions are filed, in which case the date for filing the Joint
5
Pretrial Order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after the decision on the dispositive
6
motions or further order of this Court. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and
7
any objections shall be included in the final pretrial order.
8
(F)
Interim Status Report.
9
In accordance with LR 26-3, not later than sixty (60) days before the discovery cut-off,
10
the parties shall submit an interim status report stating the time they estimate will be required for
11
trial giving three (3) alternative available trial dates, and stating whether in the opinion of
12
counsel who will try the case, trial will be eliminated or its length affected by substantive
13
motions. The status report shall be signed by counsel for each party or the party, if appearing in
14
pro se. The parties shall file the interim status report by October 4, 2018.
In accordance with LR 26-4, applications to extend any date set by the discovery plan,
17
scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be
18
supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend a
19
deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received by the Court not later than twenty-one
20
(21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made after the expiration of
21
8345 West Sunset Road
Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
(G)
16
KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW
GRONAUER & FIORENTINO
15
the subject deadline shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to set
22
was the result of excusable neglect. Any motion or stipulation to extend a deadline or to reopen
23
discovery shall include:
24
(a)
2177597_1.doc 6943.146
Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.
A statement specifying the discovery completed;
Page 4 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 5 of 6
1
(b)
A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed;
2
(c)
The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was
3
not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and
4
(d)
5
The parties recognize that this request is not being made within twenty-one (21) days of
6
the current deadline to disclose expert witnesses, July 6, 2018 pursuant to LR 26-4; however the
7
parties submit that the excusable neglect exists.
8
LR 26-4 states in relevant part:
9
A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be
received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject
deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be
supported by a showing of good cause. A request made after the expiration of the
subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the
failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.
10
11
A proposed scheduled for completing all discovery.
12
13
In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: (1) the reason
14
for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the
15
moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the
16
proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.
17
v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993).
granted twenty-one (21) days ago. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was just filed on
20
July 2, 2018. Since Plaintiffs’ Complaint has been amended to name new Defendants, the scope
21
8345 West Sunset Road
Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
The parties were not aware whether Plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint would be
19
KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW
GRONAUER & FIORENTINO
18
of discovery has changed. Moreover, the new Defendants should be afforded time to participate
22
in discovery after their appearance is made.
23
This request for an extension is made in good faith, jointly by the parties hereto, to allow
24
additional time for the new Defendants to be served and appear in the case; to allow the parties’
2177597_1.doc 6943.146
Page 5 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 6 of 6
1
time to complete written discovery, to taken depositions and to disclose expert witnesses and
2
rebuttal expert witnesses. This request is not timely, however, is the result of excusable neglect,
3
being that the parties were not certain whether the leave to amend would be granted by the Court.
4
Trial is not yet set in this matter dispositive motions have not yet been filed. Accordingly, this
5
extension will not delay this case. Moreover, since this request is a joint request, neither party
6
will be prejudiced. The extension will allow the parties the necessary time to prosecute this case.
DATED this 6th day of July, 2018.
7
8
KAEMPFER CROWELL
CLEAR COUNSEL LAW GROUP
By:
By:
9
10
11
12
13
/s/ Lyssa S. Anderson
LYSSA S. ANDERSON
Nevada Bar No. 5781
RYAN W. DANIELS
Nevada Bar No. 13094
1980 Festival Plaza Drive
Suite 650
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Attorneys for Defendant
/s/ Jared Richards
Jared Richards, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11254
1671 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy, Ste. 200
Henderson, NV 89102
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
15
16
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MAGISTRATE
19
Dated:
July 11, 2018
20
8345 West Sunset Road
Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW
GRONAUER & FIORENTINO
21
22
23
24
2177597_1.doc 6943.146
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?