Chesley v. City of Mesquite

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00218
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 008657 2 Jason R. Wigg, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 007953 3 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 4 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 Telephone: 702.727.1400 Facsimile: 702.727.1401 6 Email: Sheri.Thome@wilsonelser.com Email: Jason.Wigg@wilsonelser.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant City of Mesquite 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 JOSEPH MAQUADE CHESLEY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00218-APG-MDC 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 13 DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST) CITY OF MESQUITE; and EDWARD OWEN 14 DICKIE, in his individual capacity; and JESSE WHIPPLE, in his individual capacity; and 15 MICHAEL BRANUM, in his individual capacity; and KAREN FIELDING, in her 16 individual capacity; and PAUL WANLASS, in his individual capacity; and KEVIN PARRISH, 17 in his individual; capacity; and DOES I-X,

18 Defendants.

19 20 Plaintiff Joseph MaQuade Chesley (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant City of Mesquite 21 (“Defendant”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby submit the following 22 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines in accordance with LR 26-3 and LR IA 6-1. 23 This is the first request to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order (ECF No. 37) and 24 counsel submits that the request is brought in good faith, supported by good cause in compliance 25 with LR 26-3, addresses whether excusable neglect exists, and is not intended to cause delay. 26 A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE (LR 26-3(a)) 27 1. The Rule 26(f) conference was held on May 9, 2025. 2. Plaintiff served his initial disclosures on May 23, 2025. 1 3. Defendant served its initial disclosures on May 23, 2025. 2 4. Plaintiff served his First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant on 3 May 23, 2025. 4 B. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED (LR 26-3(b)) 5 The parties anticipate completing the following discovery: 6 1. Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s first request for production is currently due 7 July 7, 2025 (Plaintiff granted Defendant a two-week extension from June 23, 2025); 8 2. Written discovery by the parties; 9 3. Production of additional documents; 10 4. Deposition of Plaintiff; 11 5. Depositions of Defendants; 12 6. Depositions of fact witnesses; 13 7. Disclosure of experts and rebuttal experts; and 14 8. Depositions of experts. 15 C. REASONS WHY DEADLINE WAS NOT SATISFIED/GOOD CAUSE FOR 16 REQUEST (LR 26-3(c)) 17 A request to extend deadlines in the scheduling order must supported by a showing of “good 18 cause” and be made “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” LR 26-3; 19 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause 20 inquiry primarily focuses on the requesting parties’ diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 21 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists “if it cannot 22 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 23 609. “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant 24 of relief.” Id. 25 Moreover, any request made after the 21-day period will only be granted if “the movant also 26 demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-3. “‘Excusable 27 neglect’ is a flexible, equitable concept but ‘inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes 1 CV-00376-CLB, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7406, at *3-4 (D. Nev. Jan. 16, 2024) (quoting Kyle v. 2 Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1994)). 3 “In determining whether neglect is excusable, the Court must consider the following factors: 4 (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 5 on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” 6 Id. at 4 (citing Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000)). 7 1. Good Cause 8 Here, the parties submit that good cause exists to extend discovery deadlines. Defense 9 counsel for the City recently substituted in the case on June 20, 2025 (ECF 40) and the individual 10 defendants have not yet been served. Defense counsel for the City has agreed to accept service for 11 Defendants Dickie, Whipple, Fielding, Wanlass and Parrish, but Defendant Branum will be 12 appearing through separate counsel and current counsel cannot speak for him. New counsel needs 13 additional time to obtain the file from prior counsel, and then to engage in discovery on the merits 14 of the case. 15 2. Excusable Neglect 16 Excusable neglect exists in this matter as to the deadline for amending parties/adding 17 pleadings. With new defense counsel and new defendants (who haven’t been served), the parties 18 had not had sufficient time to determine what further amendments are appropriate to the pleadings. 19 There is no prejudice to either party since both parties are in agreement of the proposed extension. 20 See Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223 (first factor). There is no trial date impacted, as one has not yet been 21 set. The parties acted diligently in determining that this extension was necessary and in submitting 22 same to the Court. Finally, the Parties are acting in good faith. Id. The extension sought is due to 23 Defense counsel’s recent retention, working with client to confirm representation of new defendants 24 in the action, and deadlines quickly approaching. In sum, the factors this Court is to consider support 25 a finding of excusable neglect. 26 D. PROPOSED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE (LR 26-3(d)) 27 The parties request that the current deadlines in the scheduling order (ECF No. 37) be 2 ||| Discovery Cut-Off 10/01/2025 12/01/2025 3 Deadline to Amend Pleadings and Add Parties 07/03/2025 09/02/2025 Expert Disclosures 08/04/2025 10/03/2025 4 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 09/03/2025 11/03/2025 5 ||| Dispositive Motion Deadline 10/31/2025 01/09/2026 (post holiday) 6 Pretrial Order, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)__| 11/01/2025 01/09/2026 7 Pretrial Disclosures and any objections thereto (this deadline is | (this deadline is stayed if a dispositive | stayed if a 8 motion is timely filed | dispositive motion is until thirty (30) days | timely filed until 9 after the ruling on the | thirty (30) days after dispositive motion or | the ruling □□ □ the 10 until further order of | dispositive motion or the Court.) until further order ll of the Court.) 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 13 DATED this 30th day of June, 2025. DATED this 30th day of June, 2025. 14 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN DREHER LAW 15 || & DICKER LLP 16 || By: 4s/Sheri M. Thome By: /s/Ronald J. Dreher Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Ronald J. Dreher, Esq. 17 Nevada Bar No. 008657 Nevada Bar No. 15726 Jason R. Wigg, Esq. P.O. Box 6494 18 Nevada Bar No. 007953 Reno, NV 89513 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 775-846-9804 19 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 ron@dreherlaw.net sheri.thome @ wilsonelser.com Attorney for Plaintiff 20 jason. wigg @ wilsonelser.com Attorneys for Defendant 21 City of Mesquite 22 ORDER 23 IT IS SO orDERED A, yy -

25 sf i X Af A stHAE 26 UNFiD STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE WE) 5 ff 27 Lf 28 [