Cervantez v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Detention Service Division

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 9, 2020
• Docket: 2:17-cv-00562
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 S. BRENT VOGEL Nevada Bar No. 6858 2 Brent.Vogel@lewisbrisbois.com KATHERINE J. GORDON 3 Nevada Bar No. 5813 Katherine.Gordon@lewisbrisbois.com 4 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 South Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 T: 702.893.3383 6 F: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Defendant Allan Kirkwood, D.D.S. 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10

11 LUIS CERVANTES, CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00562-MMD-DJA

12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 13 vs. EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE (Second Request) 14 EDDIE SCOTT, et al.,

15 Defendants.

17 Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, Plaintiff Luis Cervantes (“Plaintiff”), Defendant Allan 18 Kirkwood, D.D.S. (“Dr. Kirkwood”), and Defendants Eddie Scott, Kevin Patimeteepom, and 19 Timothy Dorion (“the LVMPD Defendants”) by and through their respective counsel, hereby 20 stipulate, agree, and request that this Court extend the dispositive motion deadline from the current 21 date of April 9, 2020 because Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to 23 Extend the Discovery Deadlines. [ECF No. 73]. Defendant Dr. Kirkwood filed an Opposition to 24 the Objection [ECF No. 74]. Plaintiff’s Reply is not yet due. 25 The parties previously stipulated to continue the due date for dispositive motions until 30 26 days after the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and Motion 27 to Extend the Discovery Deadlines, which resulted in a due date of April 9, 2020. However, the 1 Therefore, the parties request a second extension of the due date for dispositive motions until 30 2 following the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Objection, which should provide a final resolution of the 3 two Motions. 4 A. Discovery Completed to Date 5 Plaintiff, Dr. Kirkwood, and the LVMPD Defendants have exchanged initial disclosures 6 pursuant to FRCP 26(f). Plaintiff provided first supplemental disclosures. The LVMPD Defendants 7 provided first and second supplemental disclosures. Dr. Kirkwood and the LVMPD Defendants 8 served first sets of written discovery requests on Plaintiff and Plaintiff responded. The LVMPD 9 Defendants served second sets of written discovery requests on Plaintiff and Plaintiff responded. 10 Dr. Kirkwood and the LVMPD Defendants served Initial Expert Disclosures. The deposition of 11 Plaintiff was taken on August 26, 2019. 12 Discovery closed on January 27, 2020. 13 B. Discovery Remaining to be Completed 14 If Plaintiff’s Objection to the Court’s denial of his Motion for Leave to File an Amended 15 Complaint (which seeks the addition of two new Defendants) [ECF No. 73] is granted and Plaintiff 16 is permitted to file his proposed amended Complaint , all parties will need additional time to 17 complete discovery. If Plaintiff’s Objection to the Court’s denial of his Motion for Leave to File an 18 Amended Complaint is denied, no additional discovery will be completed. 19 C. Reason for Request for Extension of Dispositive Motion Deadline 20 The Court’s Orders on Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying 21 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to 22 Extend the Discovery Deadlines. [ECF No. 73] may affect the deadline for dispositive motions. 23 D. Proposed Extended Deadline for Dispositive Motions 24 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter an order as follows: 25 (1) Dispositive Motions. 26 Dispositive motions may be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the Court files its Orders 27 regarding Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for 1 Deadlines. [ECF No. 73]. 2 The parties recognize that this request is not being made within twenty-one (21) days of the 3 current dispositive motion deadline, April 9, 2020 pursuant to LR 26-4; however the parties submit 4 that good cause and excusable neglect exists. 5 LR 26-4 states in relevant part: 6 A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a 7 discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 8 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request 9 made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be 10 supported by a showing of good cause. A request made after 11 the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted 12 unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act 13 was the result of excusable neglect. 14 In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: (1) the reason for 15 the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party; (2) whether the moving 16 party acted in good faith; (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; and 17 (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 18 Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). 19 As set forth above, the parties are still unaware of the Court’s ruling regarding a potential 20 amendment of the Complaint (which would add two new Defendants) and its ruling regarding 21 Plaintiff’s requested extension of the current discovery deadlines. The Magistrate Judge denied both 22 of Plaintiff’s requests, however, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate’s Order. Should the 23 Court grant Plaintiff’s Objection regarding either the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 24 an Amended Complaint or the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery, the current 25 dispositive motion deadline would be moved accordingly. 26 The parties have been diligent; however, they do not exercise control over the date upon 27 which the Court will rule on the pending Objection. The parties are unable to determine their next 1 || has ruled on the pending Objection. As such, the delay in requesting the current extension was 2 || outside the control of the parties. The length of the requested extension for dispositive motions 3 || should not result in prejudice to any party. 4 The foregoing request and stipulation for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline is 5 || made in good faith, jointly by the parties hereto. 7|| LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP KAEMPER CROWELL 9 /s/ Katherine J. Gordon /s/ Lyssa_S. Anderson S. BRENT VOGEL LYSSA S. ANDERSON 10 Nevada Bar No. 6858 Nevada Bar No. 5781 KATHERINE J. GORDON RYAN W. DANIELS 11 Nevada Bar No. 5813 Nevada Bar No. 13094 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Ste. 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 T: 702.893.3383 T: 702.792.7000 || Attorneys for Defendant Allan Kirkwood, D.D.S. Attorneys for Defendants Eddie Scott, Kevin Patimeteeporn, and Timothy Dorion 14 15 HATFIELD & ASSOCIATES 16 17 /s/ Trevor J. Hatfield TREVOR J. HATFIELD || Nevada Bar No.7373 703 S. Eighth Street 19 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 T: 702.388.4469 || Attorney for Plaintiff 21 22 ORDER 23 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ~ 25 \ 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: April 9, 2020 Case No. 2:17-cv-0562-MMD-DJA 28

AQAD_FNH282_Q2ANQ 1