JASON J. BACH Nevada Bar No. 7984 THE BACH LAW FIRM, LLC 7881 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 165 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Telephone: (702) 925-8787 Facsimile: (702) 925-8788 Email: jbach@bachlawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA MICHELLE COX, individually, and as parent and next friend of M.C., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01792-JCM-DJA Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE INITIAL EXPERT v. DISCLOSURE AND REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES RYAN LEWIS, individually, and in his official (THIRD REQUEST) capacity; JORGE PALACIOS, individually, and in his official capacity; and CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2 and LR 26-3, Michelle Cox (“Mrs. Cox”), individually, and as parent and next friend of M.C. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Ryan Lewis, Jorge Palacios, and Clark County School District (“CCSD,” collectively with Mr. Lewis and Ms. Palacios, the “Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend the Initial Expert Disclosures and the Rebuttal Expert Disclosures, as set forth in the Order [Docket No. 25] granting the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Second Request), entered in the above-captioned case, seven (7) days as support of this stipulation and request, the parties state as follows: I. COMPLIANCE WITH LR IA 6-1 This is the third stipulation for the extension of the parties’ Initial Expert Disclosures and the Rebuttal Expert Disclosures deadlines. II. COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-3 LR 26-3 governs modifications of extensions of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Per LR 26-3, any stipulation or motion must be made no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline and comply fully with LR 26-3. Considering the December 31, 2021, expert disclosure deadline is the next pertinent deadline, the parties are making this request less
than 21 days before that related deadline but more than 21 days before the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline for which the Parties are seeking an extension. The Parties have complied with the remaining 26-3 requirements below. 1. On January 26, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 2. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 3. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox served her Responses to Defendants’
First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Production and First Request for Admissions; 4. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff M.C. served their Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production; and First Request for Production upon Defendant Clark County School District; 6. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox served her First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Admissions upon Defendant Ryan Lewis; 7. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox served her First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Admissions upon Defendant Jorge Palacios; 8. On June 8, 2021, Plaintiffs served their Responses to Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories; 9. On June 8, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents;
10. On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox served her Responses to Defendants’ Second Requests for Production; 11. On June 16, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 12. On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox attended her independent medical examination with Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Lewis Etcoff; 13. On August 11, 2021, Plaintiff M.C. attended their independent medical examination with Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Lewis Etcoff; 14. On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant Ryan Lewis; 15. On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant Jorge Palacios;
and 16. On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff took the deposition of Dr. Tammy Malich 17. On November 18, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents. 1. On January 26, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 2. On February 24, 2021, Defendants served their First Request for Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents upon Plaintiff Michelle Cox; 3. On February 24, 2021, Defendants served their First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents upon Plaintiff M.C.; 4. On April 29, 2021, Defendants served their Second Set of Interrogatories upon Plaintiffs; 5. On May 17, 2021, Defendants served their Second Request for Production of
Documents upon Plaintiff Michelle Cox; 6. On May 26, 2021, Defendants disclosed their First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 7. On May 27, 2021, Defendants Jorge Palacios and Ryan Lewis served their Responses to Plaintiff Michelle Cox’s First Request for Admissions; 8. On June 9, 2021, Defendant CCSD served its Answers to Plaintiff Michelle Cox’s First Set of Interrogatories; 9. On June 11, 2021, Defendants Jorge Palacios and Ryan Lewis served their Responses to Plaintiff Michelle Cox’s First Set of Interrogatories; 10. On June 29, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Second Supplemental Disclosure of
Witnesses and Documents; 11. On July 19, 2021, Defendant CCSD served its Responses to Plaintiff Michelle Cox’s Request for Production of Documents; Witnesses and Documents; 13. On August 4, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Fourth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 14. On August 9, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Fifth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 15. On August 27, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Sixth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; and 16. On September 22, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Seventh Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents.
17. On October 20, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Eighth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents, which provided a copy of Dr. Lewis M. Etcoff’s Forensic Psychological Evaluation. 1. Expert Disclosures 2. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 3. Possible Expert Depositions 4. Depositions of Plaintiffs 5. Additional witness depositions 6. Other discovery the parties deem necessary as the case progresses.
This recitation of remaining discovery to be completed is not intended to be all inclusive but is merely set forth to inform the Court of discovery that remains to be completed. C. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DEADLINES □□ Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline Amend Pleadings and Add Parties July 2, 2021 Past/Unchanged Initial Expert Disclosures December 31, 2021 January 7, 2022 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures January 31, 2022 February 7, 2022 Discovery Cut-Off February 28, 2022 Unchanged
Pretrial Order May 2, 2022 Unchanged
g D. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good causes exists for the extension
requested. The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JASON J. BACH Nevada Bar No. 7984 THE BACH LAW FIRM, LLC 7881 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 165 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Telephone: (702) 925-8787 Facsimile: (702) 925-8788 Email: jbach@bachlawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA MICHELLE COX, individually, and as parent and next friend of M.C., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01792-JCM-DJA Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE INITIAL EXPERT v. DISCLOSURE AND REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES RYAN LEWIS, individually, and in his official (THIRD REQUEST) capacity; JORGE PALACIOS, individually, and in his official capacity; and CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2 and LR 26-3, Michelle Cox (“Mrs. Cox”), individually, and as parent and next friend of M.C. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Ryan Lewis, Jorge Palacios, and Clark County School District (“CCSD,” collectively with Mr. Lewis and Ms. Palacios, the “Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend the Initial Expert Disclosures and the Rebuttal Expert Disclosures, as set forth in the Order [Docket No. 25] granting the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Second Request), entered in the above-captioned case, seven (7) days as support of this stipulation and request, the parties state as follows: I. COMPLIANCE WITH LR IA 6-1 This is the third stipulation for the extension of the parties’ Initial Expert Disclosures and the Rebuttal Expert Disclosures deadlines. II. COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-3 LR 26-3 governs modifications of extensions of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Per LR 26-3, any stipulation or motion must be made no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline and comply fully with LR 26-3. Considering the December 31, 2021, expert disclosure deadline is the next pertinent deadline, the parties are making this request less
than 21 days before that related deadline but more than 21 days before the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline for which the Parties are seeking an extension. The Parties have complied with the remaining 26-3 requirements below. 1. On January 26, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 2. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 3. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox served her Responses to Defendants’
First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Production and First Request for Admissions; 4. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff M.C. served their Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production; and First Request for Production upon Defendant Clark County School District; 6. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox served her First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Admissions upon Defendant Ryan Lewis; 7. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox served her First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Admissions upon Defendant Jorge Palacios; 8. On June 8, 2021, Plaintiffs served their Responses to Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories; 9. On June 8, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents;
10. On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox served her Responses to Defendants’ Second Requests for Production; 11. On June 16, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 12. On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Cox attended her independent medical examination with Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Lewis Etcoff; 13. On August 11, 2021, Plaintiff M.C. attended their independent medical examination with Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Lewis Etcoff; 14. On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant Ryan Lewis; 15. On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant Jorge Palacios;
and 16. On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff took the deposition of Dr. Tammy Malich 17. On November 18, 2021, Plaintiffs disclosed their Rule 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents. 1. On January 26, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 2. On February 24, 2021, Defendants served their First Request for Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents upon Plaintiff Michelle Cox; 3. On February 24, 2021, Defendants served their First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents upon Plaintiff M.C.; 4. On April 29, 2021, Defendants served their Second Set of Interrogatories upon Plaintiffs; 5. On May 17, 2021, Defendants served their Second Request for Production of
Documents upon Plaintiff Michelle Cox; 6. On May 26, 2021, Defendants disclosed their First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 7. On May 27, 2021, Defendants Jorge Palacios and Ryan Lewis served their Responses to Plaintiff Michelle Cox’s First Request for Admissions; 8. On June 9, 2021, Defendant CCSD served its Answers to Plaintiff Michelle Cox’s First Set of Interrogatories; 9. On June 11, 2021, Defendants Jorge Palacios and Ryan Lewis served their Responses to Plaintiff Michelle Cox’s First Set of Interrogatories; 10. On June 29, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Second Supplemental Disclosure of
Witnesses and Documents; 11. On July 19, 2021, Defendant CCSD served its Responses to Plaintiff Michelle Cox’s Request for Production of Documents; Witnesses and Documents; 13. On August 4, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Fourth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 14. On August 9, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Fifth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; 15. On August 27, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Sixth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents; and 16. On September 22, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Seventh Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents.
17. On October 20, 2021, Defendants disclosed their Eighth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents, which provided a copy of Dr. Lewis M. Etcoff’s Forensic Psychological Evaluation. 1. Expert Disclosures 2. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 3. Possible Expert Depositions 4. Depositions of Plaintiffs 5. Additional witness depositions 6. Other discovery the parties deem necessary as the case progresses.
This recitation of remaining discovery to be completed is not intended to be all inclusive but is merely set forth to inform the Court of discovery that remains to be completed. C. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DEADLINES □□ Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline Amend Pleadings and Add Parties July 2, 2021 Past/Unchanged Initial Expert Disclosures December 31, 2021 January 7, 2022 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures January 31, 2022 February 7, 2022 Discovery Cut-Off February 28, 2022 Unchanged
Pretrial Order May 2, 2022 Unchanged
g D. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good causes exists for the extension
requested. The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct
discovery. FRCP 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and indicates: When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. See FRCP 6(b)(1). Under Rule 6, good cause is not a high standard and courts have construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 6 “[is] to be
liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.”);
see also Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course,
50 courts should not mindlessly enforce deadlines.”). Also, when considered in the scope of actual
motions to extend, which this is not, good cause exists if the deadline could not have reasonably
been met despite the diligence of party seeking the extension. Carlovsky y. Ditech Fin., LLC,
CV01051APGVCF, 2020 WL 6808767, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2020) (citing Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, the “district court has
1988). Here, the Parties believe they have satisfied the good cause requirement. Due to an unforeseen illness of Plaintiff’s Expert Witness, Plaintiff’s counsel is requesting a seven (7) day extension for the Parties to file their Initial Expert and Rebuttal Expert Disclosures. The Parties have conferred about the extension of the expert witness disclosure deadlines and related timing. Based on the proposed extension, the Parties believe they will have sufficient time to maintain all other discovery deadlines. Further, this request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or to delay. Moreover, there is no danger of prejudice; the extension is short; and, the extension will not negatively impact the judicial proceedings, especially
considering ongoing COVID-19 circumstances. Thus, the Parties respectfully submit that the reasons set forth above constitute good cause for the extension of the Initial Expert and Rebuttal Expert Disclosures. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this court extend the discovery deadlines as outlined in accordance with the table above. /// ///
IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED. Dated this 29th day of December, 2021. Dated this 29th day of December, 2021.
THE BACH LAW FIRM, LLC MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING
> By: /s/ Jason J. Bach By: /s/ James A. Beckstrom Jason J. Bach Craig R. Anderson Nevada Bar No. 7984 Nevada Bar No. 6882 7881 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 165 James A. Beckstrom Las Vegas, NV 89117 Nevada Bar No. 14032 g Attorneys for Plaintiff Jackie V. Nichols Nevada Bar No. 14246 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Clark County School District Office of the General Counsel Crystal J. Herrera Nevada Bar No. 12396 5100 West Sahara Avenue B Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 Attorneys for Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED this □□ day of _ January , 2022. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE