Ansara v. Maldonado

Opinion

BENJAMIN CLOWARD, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11087 SAMANTHA A. MARTIN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12998 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 444-4444 Fax: (702) 444-4455 E-Mail: SMartin@richardharrislaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ROBERT ANSARA, as Special ) CASE NO.: 2:19-CV-01394-GMN-VCF Administrator of the estate of D.B., born ) December 18, 2015 and died August 15, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 2017 and GABRIELLE BRANON- ) EXTEND DISCOVERY (Third CHESLEY, individually, as the Natural ) Request) Mother of D.B., DAVID BANKS, ) individually and as the Natural Father of ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) GLORIA MALDONADO, individually; ) AUDRA GUITERREZ, individually; ) CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada, DOE individuals I- ) ) XX; ROE CLARK COUNTY ) DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES ) EMPLOYEES I-XX, individually and in ) their official capacities; TROPICANA DE, LLC, d/b/a SIEGAL SUITES OF ) ) TROPICANA, a Foreign Limited Liability ) Corporation; AND DOE SECURITY ) COMPANY and ZOE CORPORATIONS ) XXI-XXX, ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ ) 1 extended two hundred and forty (240) days until December 10, 2021. This litigation arose out of an alleged wrongful death that occurred on August 15, 2017. The parties have engaged in extensive motion work during the pendency of this litigation, as summarized below: 1. Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint on (ECF No. 5) on August 14, 2019. 2. A First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) was filed on August 15, 2019. 3. Defendant Tropicana DE, LLC filed their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) on September 9, 2019. 4. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant Tropicana’s Motion (ECF No. 21) on September 30, 2019. 5. Defendant Tropicana filed their Reply (ECF no. 28) thereto on October 7, 2019. 6. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (ECF no. 31) on October 8, 2019. 7. Defendant Richard Whitley filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) on October 24, 2019. 8. Defendants Clark County, Gloria Maldonado, Audra Gutierrez/Guerro, Yolanda King and Tim Burch filed their Joinder to Richard Whitley’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 42); and their Separate Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.45) on October 31, 2019. 9. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (ECF No. 48) to Richard Whitley’s Motion to Dismiss on November 8, 2019. 10. Defendant Richard Whitley filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 50) on November 13, 2019. 11. Defendant Clark County, Gloria Maldonado, Audra Gutierrez/Guerro, Yolanda King and Tim Burch filed their Joinder to Richard Whitley’s 2 2019. 12. Defendant Clark County, Gloria Maldonado, Audra Gutierrez/Guerro, Yolanda King and Tim Burch filed their Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (ECF no. 56) on November 26, 2019. 13. The Court entered an Order (ECF No. 63) regarding the Motions to Dismiss filed by all Defendants (ECF Nos. 16, 41, and 45) as well as Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (ECF No. 31) on May 7, 2020. In that Order, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motions as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend. Specifically, the Court held that the claims against the Defendants were dismissed without prejudice but that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend was granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. 63 P. 20:1-20. Plaintiffs were awarded twenty-one (21) days from the date of the Order to file a Second Amended Complaint. 14. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64) on May 28, 2020. 15. A Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of Defendants Yolanda King and Timothy Burch with Prejudice was signed and entered on June 5, 2020 (ECF No. 69). 15. Defendant Tropicana filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 70) on June 11, 2020. 16. Defendant Clark County, et. al., filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 72) on June 25, 2020. 17. The Stipulation and Order for Extension to Respond to Defendant Tropicana DE, LLC Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 74) was entered on June 26, 2020. This stipulation granted Plaintiffs until July 27, 2020 to Oppose Defendant’s Motion. 3 by Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant Tropicana. This Stipulation extended Plaintiffs time to oppose Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint from July 27, 2020 until September 10, 2020. This Order was entered on July 21, 2020 (ECF No. 82). 19. On July 23, 2020, the Court entered an Order on the Stipulation for Extension to Respond to Defendant Clark County et. al.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 84). This Order granted Plaintiffs an extension until August 31, 2020 to respond to said Motion. 20. On August 31, 2020, the Court entered an Order extending discovery - second request (ECF No. 86). 21. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss was filed (ECF No. 87). 22. On September 3, 2020, the Court entered an Order re extension of time (First Request) to Reply re Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No 88). 23. On September 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed Response to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 90). 24. On September 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 91). 25. On September 11, 2020, The Court entered Order regarding Defendant Tropicana De, LLC’s Stipulation for Substitution of Attorneys (ECF No. 93). 26. On September 16, 2020, Defendant Tropicana De, LLC filed a Reply regarding Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 94). 27. On September 23, 2020, Defendant filed Response to Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 95). 4 Deadlines to Reply to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 97). 29. On October 5, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 99) 30. On October 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply regarding Motion to Amend (ECF No. 100). 31. On October 9, 2020, Defendants Clark County, Audra Gutierrez, Gloria Maldonado filed a Response to Motion to Amend (ECF No. 101). 32. On October 9, 2020, Defendants Clark County, Audra Gutierrez, Gloria Maldonado filed a Reply regarding Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 102). 33. On October 9, 2020, Defendants Clark County, Audra Gutierrez, Gloria Maldonado filed a Motion to Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 103). 34. On October 15, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Stipulation to file Reply re Motion to Amend (ECF No. 106). 35. On November 10, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Status Report (ECF No. 108) 36. On November 20, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Stipulation for Extension of Time (Second Request) to Reply to Plaintiffs’ Countermotion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 111). 37. On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply re Motion to Amend (ECF No. 112). 38. On February 22, 2021, the Court entered an Order Denying Defendant Tropicana’s Motion to Dismiss, Granting in Part and Denying in Part Clark County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Granting Clark County Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File, and Denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 113). 5 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 114). 40. On March 9, 2021, Defendants Clark County, Audra Gutierrez, Gloria Maldonado filed Answer to Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 115). In January 2021, counsel for Plaintiffs Samantha A. Martin, Esq. found out that she was pregnant with a due date in August 2021. It is Ms. Martin’s intention to take maternity leave from August 2021 until the end of October/beginning of November 2021 depending on her health and the health of the child. During that time, Ms. Martin will not be available for any depositions and will have limited availability to review the necessary expert disclosures. Furthermore, the parties anticipate that there will be numerous depositions that need to be taken to fully litigate all of the claims and defenses in this matter. The two hundred and forty (240) day extension of time will ensure that the parties have ample time to conduct any and all discovery necessary for this matter. The parties recognize that this is a lengthy discovery period but given Ms. Martin’s pregnancy as well as all of the claims, defenses and parties at issue here, they believe that the two hundred and forty (240) day extension is necessary. As such, the parties agree that an additional two hundred and forty (240) days are needed to disclose experts, complete party and witness depositions and complete discovery. I. Discovery Completed to Date 1. A Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 39) was filed on October 23, 2019. 2. Plaintiff served their Initial FRCP Disclosures on October 28, 2019. 3. Defendant Tropicana De, LLC served their Initial FRCP Disclosures on October 29, 2019. 4. Defendant Clark County, et. al. served their FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures on October 30, 2019. 5. Defendant Clark County, et. al served their FRCP 26 First Supplemental Disclosures with exhibits on February 25, 2020. 6 February 12, 2020and received Tropicana’s Responses on April 27, 2020. 7. Plaintiffs propounded their First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant Clark County, et. al. on February 12, 2020 and received their response on April 29, 2020. 8. Defendant Clark County, et. al. served their Second Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures and exhibits on April 29, 2020. 9. Defendant Clark County, et. al. propounded their first set of written discovery on Plaintiffs on April 21, 2020 and received their response on June 9, 2020. 10.Plaintiffs propounded Second Set of written discovery on Defendant Clark County on April 13, 2020. 11.Plaintiffs propounded Third Set of written discovery on Defendant Clark County on June 9, 2020 and received their response on April 10, 2020 and received their response on July 30, 2020. 12.Plaintiffs propounded Second Set of written discovery on Defendant Tropicana on June 11, 2020 and received their responses on August 21, 2020. 13.Defendant Clark County, et. al. served their Third Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures and exhibits on June 26, 2020, 14.Defendant Clark County, et. al. served their Fourth Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures and exhibits on July 30, 2020, 14.The deposition of Terry Kukyendoll was set for October 6, 2020 but needs to be re-noticed. 15.The deposition of Recccah Taylor was set for October 7, 2020 but needs to be re- noticed. 16.The deposition of Sasha Scott was set for October 7, 2020 but needs to be re- noticed. 17.The deposition of Gloria Maldonado is TBD. 18.The deposition of Audra Gutierrez is TBD. 7 20.The deposition of Valerie Shyface is TBD. 21.The deposition of Anne Sullivan is TBD. 22.The deposition of Michelle Brown is TBD. 23.The deposition of Traci Silva is TBD. 24.The deposition of Mark Perkinson is TBD. II. Description of Additional Proposed Discovery The parties discussed what additional discovery needs to be completed in this matter. It was determined that, in order to fully litigate and investigate all alleged claims and defenses, the parties need to engage in the following: 1. Depositions of parties and witnesses. 2. Additional disclosure of documents and written discovery. 3. Retention of experts. 4. Disclosure of all experts and their reports as well as depositions of the same. Proposed Schedule for Completing All Remaining Discovery The parties wish to extend the dates for discovery as follows: Current Dates Proposed Dates Last day to amend pleadings or add parties January 14, 2021 September 10, 2021 Last day to serve Initial Expert Disclosures January 14, 2021 September 10, 2021 Last day to serve Rebuttal Expert Disclosures February 12, 2021 October 8, 2021 Last day to complete discovery April 14, 2021 December 10, 2021 Last day to file dispositive motions May 14, 2021 January 7, 2022 Joint Pretrial Order February 7, 2022 If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order. III. Reasons Why Good Cause Exists to Extend Expert Discovery Deadlines FRCP 16(b)(5) provides that the scheduling order “shall not be modified” except upon a showing of good cause. The purpose of this rule is “to offer a measure of certainty in pretrial proceedings, ensuring that at some point both the parties and pleadings will be fixed.” Nutton v. Sunset Station, Inc., Nev. Adv. Rep. 34, 357 P.3d 966, 971 (Nev. App. 2015). Good cause is 8 diligence in attempting to meet said deadline. Diligence in attempting to meet a deadline may be determined by considering the explanation for the untimely conduct; the importance of the requested untimely action; the potential prejudice in allowing the untimely conduct; and the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. Id. at 971-72. As outlined above, the parties have been engaged in extensive motion work relating to Plaintiffs various claims and the defenses to the same and, until recently, the parties were without an operative complaint fully outlining the parties involved in the litigation and the claims against them. Parties were therefore unable to take depositions of any percipient witnesses, retain experts or send out written discovery narrowly tailored to the claims at issue. With the parties finally having an operative complaint from which to work, discovery can truly begin in this matter. Additionally, now that Ms. Martin is pregnant with a due date in August 2021, the parties are requesting additional time to allow for Ms. Martin’s post-partum recovery. The parties recognize that this is the third discovery extension requested. However, given the nature of this case and the extensive motion work up to this point, the parties agree that additional time is needed to complete discovery and to fully litigate this matter. This request is not being made in an attempt to delay the litigation of this matter but instead is being requested as a result of the issues outlined above as well as the party’s inability to fully litigate the claim up to this point. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 9 The requested extension of time for completion of discovery will allow the parties and their counsel to fully litigate this matter. ‘ Date:__March 17, 2021 Date:__March 17, 2021 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM HAWKINS MELENDREZ, PC /s/ Samantha A. Martin /s/ Martin I. Melendrez SAMANTHA A. MARTIN, ESQ. Martin I. Melendrez, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12998 Nevada Bar No. 7818 801 South Fourth Street 9555 Hillwood Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendant b Tropicana DE, LLC B Date:_March 17, 2021 OLSONCANNON GORMLEY & STOBERSKI S| /s/ Felicia Galati —,,,_!——_ Felicia Galati, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7341 9950 West Cheyenne Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89129 Attorneys for Defendants Clark County, Gloria Maldonado, Audra Guitierrez/Guerro, ORDER °3 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 17th day of March, 2021. pt

ff wee Feige eee ae □□ □

Cam Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge