Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 008657 Jason R. Wigg, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 007953 EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Telephone: 702.727.1400 Facsimile: 702.727.1401 Email: Sheri.Thome@wilsonelser.com Email: Jason.Wigg@wilsonelser.com Attorneys for Defendants City of Mesquite, Edward Owen Dickie, Jesse Whipple, Karen Fielding, Paul Wanlass, & Kevin Parrish
JOSEPH MAQUADE CHESLEY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00218-APG-MDC
Plaintiff,
vs. AMENDED STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (SECOND CITY OF MESQUITE; and EDWARD OWEN REQUEST) DICKIE, in his individual capacity; and JESSE WHIPPLE, in his individual capacity; and MICHAEL BRANUM, in his individual capacity; and KAREN FIELDING, in her individual capacity; and PAUL WANLASS, in his individual capacity; and KEVIN PARRISH, in his individual; capacity; and DOES I-X, Defendants. Plaintiff Joseph MaQuade Chesley (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants City of Mesquite (the “City’), Edward Owen Dickie (“Dickie”), Jesse Whipple (“Whipple”), Karen Fielding (“Fielding”), Paul Wanlass (“Wanlass”), Kevin Parrish (“Parish”) and Michael Branum (“Branum”) (collectively the “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby submit the following Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines in accordance with LR 26-3 and LR IA 6-1. This is the second request to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order (ECF No. 37), with the first request having been granted pursuant to a stipulation between the Parties (ECF No. 45). Counsel submits that the request is brought in good faith, supported by good cause in compliance with LR 26-3, addresses whether excusable neglect exists, and is not intended to cause delay. A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE (LR 26-3(a)) 1. The Rule 26(f) conference was held on May 9, 2025. 2. Plaintiff served his initial disclosures on May 23, 2025. 3. Defendant City served its initial disclosures on May 23, 2025. 4. Plaintiff served his First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant City on May 23, 2025. 5. Defendant City served its responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents on July 7, 2025 (in accordance with a two-week extension granted by Plaintiff to Defendant from June 23, 2025). B. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED (LR 26-3(b)) The parties anticipate completing the following discovery: 1. Written discovery by the parties; 2. Production of additional documents; 3. Deposition of Plaintiff; 4. Depositions of Defendants; 5. Depositions of fact witnesses; 6. Disclosure of experts and rebuttal experts; and 7. Depositions of experts. C. REASONS WHY DEADLINE WAS NOT SATISFIED/GOOD CAUSE FOR REQUEST (LR 26-3(c)) A request to extend deadlines in the scheduling order must supported by a showing of “good cause” and be made “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” LR 26-3; Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause inquiry primarily focuses on the requesting parties’ diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant Moreover, any request made after the 21-day period will only be granted if “the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-3. “‘Excusable neglect’ is a flexible, equitable concept but ‘inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect.’” Williams v. McCoy, No. 3:22- CV-00376-CLB, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7406, at *3-4 (D. Nev. Jan. 16, 2024) (quoting Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1994)). “In determining whether neglect is excusable, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 4 (citing Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000)). 1. Good Cause Here, the parties submit that good cause exists to extend discovery deadlines. Defense counsel for the City substituted in the case on June 20, 2025 (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30) also brought in six individual defendants. Defense counsel for the City agreed to accept service for Defendants, Dickie, Whipple, Fielding, Wanlass and Parrish, pursuant to an Acceptance of Service filed June 30, 2025 (ECF No. 44). Defendant Michael Branum (“Branum”) appeared through separate counsel, Rusty Graf, Esq. of the law firm Black & Wadhams, pursuant to an Acceptance of Service filed July 10, 2025 (ECF No. 48). In addition to needing adequate time to obtain the file from prior counsel and to engage in discovery on the merits of the case, discovery has been affected by dispositive motion practice associated with Plaintiff’s First (ECF No. 24), Second (ECF No. 30), and Third (ECF No. 49) Amended Complaints. 2. Excusable Neglect Excusable neglect exists in this matter as to the deadline for amending parties/adding pleadings. With new defense counsel and new defendants, the parties had not had sufficient time to determine what further amendments are appropriate to the pleadings. There is no prejudice to either party since both parties are in agreement of the proposed extension. See Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223 (first factor). There is no trial date impacted, as one has not yet been set. The parties acted Finally, the Parties are acting in good faith. Id. The extension sought is due to Defense counsel’s recent retention, working with client to confirm representation of new defendants in the action, and deadlines quickly approaching. In sum, the factors this Court is to consider support a finding of excusable neglect. D. PROPOSED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE (LR 26-3(d)) The parties request that the current deadlines in the scheduling order (ECF No. 45) be extended as follows:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 008657 Jason R. Wigg, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 007953 EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Telephone: 702.727.1400 Facsimile: 702.727.1401 Email: Sheri.Thome@wilsonelser.com Email: Jason.Wigg@wilsonelser.com Attorneys for Defendants City of Mesquite, Edward Owen Dickie, Jesse Whipple, Karen Fielding, Paul Wanlass, & Kevin Parrish
JOSEPH MAQUADE CHESLEY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00218-APG-MDC
Plaintiff,
vs. AMENDED STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (SECOND CITY OF MESQUITE; and EDWARD OWEN REQUEST) DICKIE, in his individual capacity; and JESSE WHIPPLE, in his individual capacity; and MICHAEL BRANUM, in his individual capacity; and KAREN FIELDING, in her individual capacity; and PAUL WANLASS, in his individual capacity; and KEVIN PARRISH, in his individual; capacity; and DOES I-X, Defendants. Plaintiff Joseph MaQuade Chesley (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants City of Mesquite (the “City’), Edward Owen Dickie (“Dickie”), Jesse Whipple (“Whipple”), Karen Fielding (“Fielding”), Paul Wanlass (“Wanlass”), Kevin Parrish (“Parish”) and Michael Branum (“Branum”) (collectively the “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby submit the following Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines in accordance with LR 26-3 and LR IA 6-1. This is the second request to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order (ECF No. 37), with the first request having been granted pursuant to a stipulation between the Parties (ECF No. 45). Counsel submits that the request is brought in good faith, supported by good cause in compliance with LR 26-3, addresses whether excusable neglect exists, and is not intended to cause delay. A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE (LR 26-3(a)) 1. The Rule 26(f) conference was held on May 9, 2025. 2. Plaintiff served his initial disclosures on May 23, 2025. 3. Defendant City served its initial disclosures on May 23, 2025. 4. Plaintiff served his First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant City on May 23, 2025. 5. Defendant City served its responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents on July 7, 2025 (in accordance with a two-week extension granted by Plaintiff to Defendant from June 23, 2025). B. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED (LR 26-3(b)) The parties anticipate completing the following discovery: 1. Written discovery by the parties; 2. Production of additional documents; 3. Deposition of Plaintiff; 4. Depositions of Defendants; 5. Depositions of fact witnesses; 6. Disclosure of experts and rebuttal experts; and 7. Depositions of experts. C. REASONS WHY DEADLINE WAS NOT SATISFIED/GOOD CAUSE FOR REQUEST (LR 26-3(c)) A request to extend deadlines in the scheduling order must supported by a showing of “good cause” and be made “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” LR 26-3; Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause inquiry primarily focuses on the requesting parties’ diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant Moreover, any request made after the 21-day period will only be granted if “the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-3. “‘Excusable neglect’ is a flexible, equitable concept but ‘inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect.’” Williams v. McCoy, No. 3:22- CV-00376-CLB, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7406, at *3-4 (D. Nev. Jan. 16, 2024) (quoting Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1994)). “In determining whether neglect is excusable, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 4 (citing Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000)). 1. Good Cause Here, the parties submit that good cause exists to extend discovery deadlines. Defense counsel for the City substituted in the case on June 20, 2025 (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30) also brought in six individual defendants. Defense counsel for the City agreed to accept service for Defendants, Dickie, Whipple, Fielding, Wanlass and Parrish, pursuant to an Acceptance of Service filed June 30, 2025 (ECF No. 44). Defendant Michael Branum (“Branum”) appeared through separate counsel, Rusty Graf, Esq. of the law firm Black & Wadhams, pursuant to an Acceptance of Service filed July 10, 2025 (ECF No. 48). In addition to needing adequate time to obtain the file from prior counsel and to engage in discovery on the merits of the case, discovery has been affected by dispositive motion practice associated with Plaintiff’s First (ECF No. 24), Second (ECF No. 30), and Third (ECF No. 49) Amended Complaints. 2. Excusable Neglect Excusable neglect exists in this matter as to the deadline for amending parties/adding pleadings. With new defense counsel and new defendants, the parties had not had sufficient time to determine what further amendments are appropriate to the pleadings. There is no prejudice to either party since both parties are in agreement of the proposed extension. See Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223 (first factor). There is no trial date impacted, as one has not yet been set. The parties acted Finally, the Parties are acting in good faith. Id. The extension sought is due to Defense counsel’s recent retention, working with client to confirm representation of new defendants in the action, and deadlines quickly approaching. In sum, the factors this Court is to consider support a finding of excusable neglect. D. PROPOSED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE (LR 26-3(d)) The parties request that the current deadlines in the scheduling order (ECF No. 45) be extended as follows:
Description Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Discovery Cut-Off 12/01/2025 01/30/2026 Deadline to Amend Pleadings and Add Parties 09/02/2025 11/03/2025 Expert Disclosures 10/03/2025 12/02/2025 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 11/03/2025 01/02/2026 Dispositive Motion Deadline 01/09/2026 03/10/2026 (post-holiday) Pretrial Order, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) 01/09/2026 03/10/2026 Pretrial Disclosures and any objections thereto (this deadline is stayed if a dispositive motion is timely filed until thirty (30) days after the ruling on the dispositive motion or until further order of the Court.) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// DATED this 21st day of August, 2025. DATED this 20th day of August, 2025. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN DREHER LAW & DICKER LLP /s/ Sheri M. Thome /s/ Ronald J_ Dreher Sheri M. Thome, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 008657 ~—Ronald J. Dreher, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 15726 Jason R. Wigg, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 007953 P.O. Box 6494 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 200 Reno, NV 89513 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 775-846-9804 Attorneys for Defendants City of Mesquite, Attorney for Plaintiff Edward Owen Dickie, Jesse Whipple, Karen Fielding, Paul Wanlass, & Kevin Parrish DATED this 21st day of August, 2025. BLACK & WADHAMS /s/ Rusty J_ Graft Rusty J. Graf, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 06322 10777 W. Twain Avenue, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89135 ) rgraf@blackwadhams.law Attorney for Defendant Michael Branuin
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following deadlines shall be extended as follows: Discovery Cut-Off 01/30/2026 Deadline to Amend Pleadings and Add Parties 11/03/2025 12/02/2025 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 01/02/2026 Dispositive Motion Deadline 03/10/2026 Pretrial Order, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial 03/10/2026 Disclosures and any objections thereto
IT IS SO ORDERED: JA4
Hon. M iliano D. Couvillier, III 95 UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: August 27, 2025 &