Devore v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al
Filing
62
ORDER granting 61 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Deadlines. Discovery due by 10/8/2024. Motions due by 11/7/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/6/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 2/5/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CT)
1 Marquis Aurbach
Craig R. Anderson, Esq.
2 Nevada Bar No. 6882
Jackie V. Nichols, Esq.
3 Nevada Bar No. 14246
10001 Park Run Drive
4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone: (702) 382-0711
5 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816
canderson@maclaw.com
6 jnichols@maclaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan
7
Police Department
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10 ALEXANDRIA DEVORE, an individual,
12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816
MARQUIS AURBACH
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
13 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a municipal corporation;
14 SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO, an
individual; LIEUTENANT KURT
15 MCKENZIE, an individual, SONNY
URANICH, an individual, PATRICK
16 WESLOWSKI, an individual, UNKNOWN
OFFICERS 3-12, individuals,
17
Defendants.
18
19
Case Number:
2:22-cv-01045-CDS-BNW
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND
SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
(THIRD REQUEST)
Plaintiff Alexandria Devore (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record,
20 Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of
21 McLetchie Law, and Defendant, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the
22 “Department” or “LVMPD”), by and through their counsel of record, Craig R. Anderson, Esq.
23 and Jackie V. Nichols, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the
24 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines an additional nine (9) months. This
25 Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes of delay (supplemented
26 information noted in bold-face type).
27 . . .
28 . . .
Page 1 of 7
MAC:14687-421 5274871_2
1 I.
STATUS OF DISCOVERY.
2
A.
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY.
3
1.
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP
4 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022.
5
2.
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
6 Department - Set One dated October 26, 2022.
7
3.
Plaintiff’s Request for Production to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
8 Department - Set One dated October 28, 2022.
9
4.
Plaintiff Alexandria Devore's Requests for Production to LVMPD - Set Two
10 dated May 16, 2023.
5.
Plaintiff Devore’s Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for
12 Production of Documents dated July 12, 2023.
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816
MARQUIS AURBACH
11
13
6.
Plaintiff Devore’s Answers to LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories dated
14 July 12, 2023.
15
7.
Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents
16 Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated July 12, 2023.
17
B.
DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY.
18
1.
LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant
19 to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022.
20
2.
LVMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Interrogatories - Set One
21 dated November 28, 2023.
22
3.
LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and
23 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated November 30, 2022.
24
4.
LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and
25 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated December 7, 2022.
26
5.
LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Request for Production
27 - Set One dated December 7, 2022.
28
Page 2 of 7
MAC:14687-421 5274871_2
1
6.
LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore dated
2 April 21, 2023.
3
7.
LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff
4 Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023.
5
8.
LVMPD’s Responses to Alexandria Devore’s Requests for Production of
6 Documents - Set Two dated July 17, 2023.
7
9.
LVMPD Defendants’ Third Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and
8 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated July 17, 2023.
9 II.
10
DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED.
The Parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations in an effort to resolve
12 to allow counsel to negotiate. (See ECF No. 60). Further, the Parties are also actively
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816
MARQUIS AURBACH
11 Plaintiff’s claims. All deadlines were stayed from November 9, 2023, until January 8, 2024,
13 conducting discovery. The Parties are working on depositions of named parties and witnesses.
14 For the reasons explained below, the Parties will need additional time to propound written
15 discovery, respond to written discovery, conduct depositions, and disclose experts.
16 III.
SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY.
17
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension
18 requested. This is the first request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. The
19 Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a deadline set
20 forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than 21 days before the
21 expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 21 days must be supported
22 by a showing of good cause. Further, requests made after the expiration of the subject deadline
23 will not be granted unless the Parties demonstrate that the failure to act was the result of
24 excusable neglect. Here, most of the deadlines the Parties seek to extend are outside of the 2125 day window, the deadline for initial expert disclosures, however, has passed. As such, the
26 excusable neglect applies to the deadline for initial expert disclosures.
27
The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct
28 discovery. The Parties are working on scheduling the depositions of named parties and
Page 3 of 7
MAC:14687-421 5274871_2
1 witnesses. The Parties previously entered into a stay of the discovery deadlines pending
2 settlement discussions, but to no avail. See ECF Nos. 57 and 60. The Parties contend an
3 extension of discovery deadlines enables them to continue to conduct necessary discovery so
4 that this matter is fairly resolved and give the experts the opportunity to review all discovery
5 produced in this dispute. Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further
6 the resolution of this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay.
7
The Parties thus respectfully request an extension of time to extend the discovery in
8 this matter to enable to them to conduct necessary discovery in this matter and so that this
9 matter is fairly resolved on the merits. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if
10 it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa
12 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816
MARQUIS AURBACH
11 v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108235, 2013 WL
13 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil
14 Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to
15 secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As
16 the procedural history of this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in litigating this
17 matter. The Parties are continuing to engage in written discovery and have begun coordinating
18 the taking of depositions.
19
Additionally, counsel for the Parties in this matter are litigating several other unrelated
20 matters against each other which are well-advanced and have competing demands, and while
21 competing demands of litigation are merely one of many reasons for the instant request, it
22 should be noted that the other litigation between the same counsel involving similar issues can
23 only benefit from expanded discovery so that in other litigation, similar requests can be
24 expedited because they may have been done at least in part in this case; in this case, it would
25 be a matter of a universal benefit to the ends of justice and future efficiencies.
26
Finally, counsel for Defendants has been ill through December and January, which
27 necessitated several medical appointments and required her to be out of the office.
28 Additionally, counsel for Defendants is anticipated to have surgery on her knee in the near
Page 4 of 7
MAC:14687-421 5274871_2
1 future. Counsel for Plaintiff has also been ill during December and January, including a
2 respiratory illness, and is currently recovering from COVID. These circumstances further
3 compound the need for an extension of the discovery deadlines.
4
Thus, the standards to extend all deadlines, including the expert deadlines, are satisfied
5 here.
6 IV.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING
DEADLINES
7
8
Current Deadline
Proposed New Deadline
February 7, 2023
Past Due/Unchanged
September 7, 2023
August 9, 2024
October 7, 2023
September 9, 2024
December 5, 2023
October 8, 2024 [
Dispositive Motions
January 3, 2024
November 7, 2024
Pretrial Order
February 2, 2024
December 6, 2024 (If
dispositive motions are filed,
the deadline shall be
suspended until thirty (30)
days after the decision of the
dispositive motions or further
order of the Court.)
Amend Pleadings and Add Parties
9
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816
MARQUIS AURBACH
10
Initial Expert Disclosures
11
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
12
Discovery Cut-Off
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28
Page 5 of 7
MAC:14687-421 5274871_2
1
Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request
2 that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended additional nine (9)
3 months so that the parties may conduct additional discovery and conduct depositions.
4
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2024.
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2024.
5
MCLETCHIE LAW
MARQUIS AURBACH
By: _/s/ N. Pieter O’ Leary
Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10931
N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 15297
Leo S. Wolpert, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12658
602 South 10th Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiff Alexandria
Devore
By:
6
7
8
9
10
12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816
MARQUIS AURBACH
11
/s/ Jackie V. Nichols
Craig R. Anderson, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6882
Jackie V. Nichols, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 14246
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department
13
ORDER
14
15
The above Stipulation is hereby GRANTED.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: __________________
2/5/2024
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 6 of 7
MAC:14687-421 5274871_2
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing STIPULATION AND
3 ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER
4 DEADLINES (THIRD REQUEST) with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District
5 Court by using the court’s CM/ECF system on the 2nd day of February, 2024.
6
I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users
7 and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
8
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered
9 CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid,
10 or have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to
12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816
MARQUIS AURBACH
11 the following non-CM/ECF participants:
N/A
13
14
/s/ Rosie Wesp
An employee of Marquis Aurbach
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 7 of 7
MAC:14687-421 5274871_2
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?