Johnson v. Walmart, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER Granting 21 Stipulation to Continue Discovery Plan. Discovery due by 12/5/2024. Motions due by 1/6/2025. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/4/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 9/24/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
1160 North Town Center Drive
Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone]

HALL & EVANS, LLC

HALL & EVANS, LLC
KURT R. BONDS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6228
TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13872
1160 North Town Center Drive
Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

ANTHONY ESSICK JOHNSON, an
individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.

13
14
15
16
17

CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-01388-CDS-MDC

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE DISCOVERY PLAN
AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(FORUTH REQUEST)

WALMART, INC., WAL-MART REAL
ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST; DOES I
through XXX, inclusive and ROE BUSINESS
ENTITIES I through XXX, inclusive,
Defendants.

18

Plaintiff ANTHONY ESSICK JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys of

19

record, RAMZY PAUL LADAH, ESQ. and BRANDON P. SMITH, ESQ., of the law firm LADAH

20

LAW FIRM, and Defendants WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS

21

TRUST (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their attorney of

22

record, KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. and TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ., of the law firm HALL &

23

EVANS, LLC, submit this STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

24

DEADLINES (FOURTH REQUEST) pursuant to LR 26-4 for the Court’s consideration.

25

...

26

...

27

...

28

...
1

KB/20147-84

1

I.

2

DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE

3

1. A Rule 26(f) Case Conference was held and a Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order was filed.

4

2. Plaintiff served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures.

5

3. Defendants served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures.

6

4. Plaintiff served a first supplement to FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures.

7

5. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for production to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to

8
9
10
11

1160 North Town Center Drive
Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone]

HALL & EVANS, LLC

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded.
6. Plaintiff propounded his first set of interrogatories to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to which
Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded.
7. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for admissions to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to
which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded.
8. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of requests for production to Plaintiff, to
which Plaintiff responded.
9. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of interrogatories to Plaintiff, to which
Plaintiff responded.
10. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of requests for admission to Plaintiff, to
which Plaintiff responded.

19

11. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its first supplement to its FRCP 26(a) disclosures.

20

12. Plaintiff served a second supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and an initial designation of

21

their expert witnesses and documents.

22

13. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its second supplemental 26(a) disclosures.

23

14. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its initial expert disclosures.

24

15. Plaintiff served a third supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and their first supplement to

25
26
27
28

their expert witness and documents disclosures.
16. Plaintiff served a fourth supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and their rebuttal expert
designation.
17. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its rebuttal expert disclosures.
2

KB/20147-84

1
2

II.

3

DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED

4

1. Depositions of the Defendant’s 30(b)(6) representative(s).

5

2. Depositions of percipient witnesses.

6

3. Depositions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians.

7

4. Depositions of experts.

8

5. Additional written discovery as needed.

9

III.

10

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE EXTENSION

11

1160 North Town Center Drive
Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone]

HALL & EVANS, LLC

18. Deposition of Plaintiff has been taken.

A. Excusable Neglect can be Proven as an Exception to Submission of Stipulation within

12

21 Days of Expert Deadline

13

A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a

14

showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. Further, “[a] request made within

15

21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.” Local Rule 26-3.

16

The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite

17

the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).

18

In making this determination, courts consider whether relief from the scheduling order is sought

19

based on the development of matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the

20

schedule was established. E.g., Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

21

Lastly, “[w]hen a request to extend case management deadlines is made by stipulation, courts may

22

consider the joint nature of the request in deciding whether the circumstances warrant an amendment

23

to the scheduling order.” Williams v. James River Grp., 627 F.Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022).

24

When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has

25

expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

26

v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable

27

neglect analysis is guided by factors that include (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party;

28

(2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay;
3

KB/20147-84

1160 North Town Center Drive
Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone]

HALL & EVANS, LLC

1

and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Branch Banking, 871 F.3d at 765. Magistrate judges

2

have broad discretion to manage the discovery process “in the interests of dispatch and fairness.” V5

3

Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 361 (D. Nev. 2019); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d

4

732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

Good cause exists in this case to grant a discovery extension. Both parties in this case are

6

agreeable to the stipulated extension of time as to continue diligently conducting discovery of this

7

matter showing no prejudice to either party in the interest of fairness to both parties. While the parties

8

were working diligently to progress this case, Defendant’s counsel experienced personal conflicts,

9

including tragic deaths in the family along with pre-arranged extended vacation time. These

10

instances have created scheduling conflicts regarding the remaining depositions. Further, Defendant

11

wishes to depose both of Plaintiff’s children which has required specialized scheduling arrangements

12

to ensure that a guardian be present. Finally, recent rebuttal expert disclosures have revealed the

13

need to take additional depositions, and this need cannot be met within the currently established

14

deadlines. This request will not impact the trial date as this matter has not yet been set for trial. No

15

prejudice will arise to either party, as both parties agree an extension is warranted in light of the

16

deposition scheduling conflicts.

17

The "good cause" standard is liberally construed to ensure that cases are tried on their merits, not

18

technicalities. See Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Wong v.

19

Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Deadlines must not be enforced

20

mindlessly, of course.") Local Rule 26-3 sets additional requirements and provides that motions

21

submitted within 21 days of the date they seek to change must show good cause. LR 26-3.

22

Dae Sung Hi Tech. Co., LTD v. D&B Sales, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132973, *1-2. Defendant

23

has been working to identify and retain 30(b)(6) representatives to be deposed, as well as identifying

24

those individuals that still need to be deposed to obtain a proper factual understanding of the case at

25

issue. The extension of time allows for Plaintiff to not be prejudiced by the lack of available

26

admissible evidence for their lawsuit. As both parties are willing and agreeable to an extension of

27

time to complete discovery, it is in the Court’s best interest to grant as not to waste the Court’s time

28

and resources in adjudicating the case for its merits.
4

KB/20147-84

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request an extension of the current deadlines as

1
2

indicated below. This is the fourth request for an extension of discovery in this matter.

3

IV.

4

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY

5
DISCOVERY

1160 North Town Center Drive
Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone]

HALL & EVANS, LLC

6

CURRENT
DEADLINE

PROPOSED DEADLINE

7

Add Parties and Amend Pleadings

CLOSED

CLOSED

8

Initial Expert Disclosure

CLOSED

CLOSED

9

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure

August 7, 2024

CLOSED

10

Close of Discovery

September 6, 2024

December 5, 2024

11

Dispositive Motions

October 7, 2024

January 6, 2025

12

Joint Pretrial Order

November 6, 2024

February 4, 2025

13

...

14

...

15

...

16

...

17

...

18

...

19

...

20

...

21

...

22

...

23

...

24

...

25

...

26

...

27

...

28

...
5

KB/20147-84

1

V.

2

CURRENT TRIAL DATE

3

No trial date has been set.

4

This Stipulation is not made for purposes of undue delay of discovery or trial in this matter

5
6
7

LADAH LAW FIRM

HALL & EVANS, LLC

8

/s/ Brandon P. Smith__________
RAMZY P. LADAH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11405
BRANDON P. SMITH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10443
517 South Third Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Counsel for Plaintiff

_/s/ Kurt R. Bonds__
KURT R. BONDS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6228
TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13872
1160 North Town Center Drive, Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
Attorneys for Defendants

9
10
11
12
1160 North Town Center Drive
Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
[phone]

HALL & EVANS, LLC

but is submitted in the interest of realizing a trial on the merits.
DATED this 27th day of August, 2024.
DATED this 27th day of August, 2024.

ORDER

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED:
DATED: 9/24/24

16
17

_____ _____________________________________
Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Submitted by:
HALL & EVANS, LLC
/s/ Kurt R. Bonds
KURT R. BONDS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6228
TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13872
1160 North Town Center Drive, Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
Attorneys for Defendants

27
28
6

KB/20147-84