1 ADAM J. BREEDEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 008768 2 ALYSSA N. PIRAINO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14601 3 BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 7432 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 101 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Phone: (702) 819-7770 5 Fax: (702) 819-7771 Adam@Breedenandassociates.com 6 Alyssa@Breedenandassociates.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 DAVEEZ BOOTH, an individual, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01120-JAD-NJK 11 Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF DAVEEZ BOOTH’S 12 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND
13 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DISCOVERY AND RE-OPEN THE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the INITIAL EXPERT DEADLINE (FIRST 14 State of Nevada; BRIAN REYES, an REQUEST) 15 individual,
16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff DAVEEZ BOOTH by and through his attorneys of record, BREEDEN & 18 ASSOCIATES PLLC, hereby submits this Motion to Extend Discovery and Re-Open the Initial 19 Expert Deadline in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR 26-3. 20 Undersigned counsel has conferred with Craig Anderson, Esq., counsel for Defendants and 21 he does not object to the granting of relief requested herein. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 Plaintiff and his counsel respectfully ask this Court to extend discovery primarily to allow 24 Plaintiff to designate his expert due to circumstances beyond his control. Plaintiff had timely 25 retained Colby P. Young, M.D. with Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, 26 Plaintiff’s counsel received notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. This is just 27 days before the initial expert deadline of October 30. 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately informed 1 defense counsel of the issue and began to identify a new expert. However, Plaintiff’s counsel needed 2 to identify the expected turnaround time from the new expert prior to coming to the Court and 3 requesting additional time. 4 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 5 Plaintiff BOOTH, through his counsel, filed this action on May 27, 2025 in the Eighth 6 Judicial District Court of Nevada, Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 23, 2025 7 [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2024, Officer Defendant REYES and LVMPD 8 violated his civil rights. Plaintiff’s claimed injuries include a fracture of the right wrist. 9 The timeline of relevant procedural events is as follows: Plaintiff filed this case on May 27, 10 2025, in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Defendants removed the action to this Court 11 on June 23, 2025 [ECF No. 1]. On July 22, 2025, the Court issued the Discovery Plan and 12 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 11]. This sets the deadline to disclose experts as October 30, 2025, and 13 the close of discovery as December 29, 2025. 14 Prior to the expert disclosure deadline, Plaintiff retained Dr. Colby P. Young, M.D. with 15 Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, Plaintiff’s counsel received 16 notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. Being that the expert disclosure deadline 17 was just days away, Plaintiff’s counsel immediately reached out to Craig Anderson, counsel for 18 Defendants to advise him of the situation and let him know that we would need to request an 19 extension to disclose experts. Additionally, Plaintiff immediately set out to retain a new expert to 20 opine on Plaintiff’s wrist injury. 21 III. LAW AND ARGUMENT 22 A. Legal Standard to Extend the Expert Disclosure Deadline 23 The district court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation and in 24 issuing and enforcing scheduling orders. Williams v. James River Group Incorporated, 627 F. Supp. 25 3d 1172, 1177 (D. Nev. 2022). When a party seeks to reopen discovery after deadlines have passed, 26 the party must demonstrate good cause for extending discovery beyond the established deadline and 27 excusable neglect for their failure to move for an extension before the deadline expired. See 1 diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). According to 2 LR 26-3, “[a] request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the 3 movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” "The 4 determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four 5 factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 6 impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good 7 faith." Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer 8 Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 9 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993)); see also Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 B. Good Cause Exists to Reopen Expert Disclosures and the Need to Re-Open the Initial Expert Deadline is the Result of Excusable Neglect 11 The following details the reasons why Plaintiff Booth’s Counsel believes there is good cause 12 to extend discovery in this matter. The entire reason is that the Plaintiff had timely retained Dr. 13 Colby P. Young, M.D., with Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, 2025, 14 Plaintiff’s counsel received notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. This is just 15 days before the initial expert deadline of October 30. 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel exercised extreme 16 diligence and immediately began to identify a new expert but thought it was best to identify the 17 expected turnaround time from the new expert prior to coming to the Court and requesting additional 18 time. 19 The need to re-open the initial expert disclosure deadline is the result of excusable neglect. 20 So long as the remaining deadlines are extended along with the initial expert deadline, Defendants 21 will suffer no prejudice as they will have ample time to rebut Plaintiff’s new hand expert and depose 22 said expert if they wish to do so. Being that this case was filed in May 2025 and a trial date has not 23 yet been set, the length of delay and its impact on the proceedings will be minimal. The reason for 24 the delay is the sudden and unexpected death of Plaintiff’s expert just days before the initial expert 25 disclosure deadline. Lastly, Plaintiff has acted in good faith. This is clearly a situation out of 26 Plaintiff’s control. Moreover, after being notified of Dr. Young’s tragic passing, Plaintiff’s counsel 27 immediately notified defense counsel of the circumstances and the need for an extension. Counsel 1 also immediately began searching for a replacement expert and began coordinating retention. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff is able to demonstrate good cause and excusable neglect to extend and re- 3 open the current discovery deadlines. 4 C. Discovery Completed to Date. 5 The parties have completed the following discovery in this case: 6 1. Plaintiff has served initial disclosures and one supplement, which includes approximately 7 170 pages of documents and 19 witnesses; 8 2. Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Brian Reyes have served their 9 initial disclosure and two supplements, which includes approximately 598 pages of 10 documents and 19 witnesses; 11 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 ADAM J. BREEDEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 008768 2 ALYSSA N. PIRAINO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14601 3 BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 7432 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 101 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Phone: (702) 819-7770 5 Fax: (702) 819-7771 Adam@Breedenandassociates.com 6 Alyssa@Breedenandassociates.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 DAVEEZ BOOTH, an individual, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01120-JAD-NJK 11 Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF DAVEEZ BOOTH’S 12 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND
13 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DISCOVERY AND RE-OPEN THE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the INITIAL EXPERT DEADLINE (FIRST 14 State of Nevada; BRIAN REYES, an REQUEST) 15 individual,
16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff DAVEEZ BOOTH by and through his attorneys of record, BREEDEN & 18 ASSOCIATES PLLC, hereby submits this Motion to Extend Discovery and Re-Open the Initial 19 Expert Deadline in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR 26-3. 20 Undersigned counsel has conferred with Craig Anderson, Esq., counsel for Defendants and 21 he does not object to the granting of relief requested herein. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 Plaintiff and his counsel respectfully ask this Court to extend discovery primarily to allow 24 Plaintiff to designate his expert due to circumstances beyond his control. Plaintiff had timely 25 retained Colby P. Young, M.D. with Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, 26 Plaintiff’s counsel received notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. This is just 27 days before the initial expert deadline of October 30. 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately informed 1 defense counsel of the issue and began to identify a new expert. However, Plaintiff’s counsel needed 2 to identify the expected turnaround time from the new expert prior to coming to the Court and 3 requesting additional time. 4 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 5 Plaintiff BOOTH, through his counsel, filed this action on May 27, 2025 in the Eighth 6 Judicial District Court of Nevada, Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 23, 2025 7 [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2024, Officer Defendant REYES and LVMPD 8 violated his civil rights. Plaintiff’s claimed injuries include a fracture of the right wrist. 9 The timeline of relevant procedural events is as follows: Plaintiff filed this case on May 27, 10 2025, in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Defendants removed the action to this Court 11 on June 23, 2025 [ECF No. 1]. On July 22, 2025, the Court issued the Discovery Plan and 12 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 11]. This sets the deadline to disclose experts as October 30, 2025, and 13 the close of discovery as December 29, 2025. 14 Prior to the expert disclosure deadline, Plaintiff retained Dr. Colby P. Young, M.D. with 15 Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, Plaintiff’s counsel received 16 notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. Being that the expert disclosure deadline 17 was just days away, Plaintiff’s counsel immediately reached out to Craig Anderson, counsel for 18 Defendants to advise him of the situation and let him know that we would need to request an 19 extension to disclose experts. Additionally, Plaintiff immediately set out to retain a new expert to 20 opine on Plaintiff’s wrist injury. 21 III. LAW AND ARGUMENT 22 A. Legal Standard to Extend the Expert Disclosure Deadline 23 The district court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation and in 24 issuing and enforcing scheduling orders. Williams v. James River Group Incorporated, 627 F. Supp. 25 3d 1172, 1177 (D. Nev. 2022). When a party seeks to reopen discovery after deadlines have passed, 26 the party must demonstrate good cause for extending discovery beyond the established deadline and 27 excusable neglect for their failure to move for an extension before the deadline expired. See 1 diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). According to 2 LR 26-3, “[a] request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the 3 movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” "The 4 determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four 5 factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 6 impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good 7 faith." Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer 8 Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 9 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993)); see also Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 B. Good Cause Exists to Reopen Expert Disclosures and the Need to Re-Open the Initial Expert Deadline is the Result of Excusable Neglect 11 The following details the reasons why Plaintiff Booth’s Counsel believes there is good cause 12 to extend discovery in this matter. The entire reason is that the Plaintiff had timely retained Dr. 13 Colby P. Young, M.D., with Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, 2025, 14 Plaintiff’s counsel received notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. This is just 15 days before the initial expert deadline of October 30. 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel exercised extreme 16 diligence and immediately began to identify a new expert but thought it was best to identify the 17 expected turnaround time from the new expert prior to coming to the Court and requesting additional 18 time. 19 The need to re-open the initial expert disclosure deadline is the result of excusable neglect. 20 So long as the remaining deadlines are extended along with the initial expert deadline, Defendants 21 will suffer no prejudice as they will have ample time to rebut Plaintiff’s new hand expert and depose 22 said expert if they wish to do so. Being that this case was filed in May 2025 and a trial date has not 23 yet been set, the length of delay and its impact on the proceedings will be minimal. The reason for 24 the delay is the sudden and unexpected death of Plaintiff’s expert just days before the initial expert 25 disclosure deadline. Lastly, Plaintiff has acted in good faith. This is clearly a situation out of 26 Plaintiff’s control. Moreover, after being notified of Dr. Young’s tragic passing, Plaintiff’s counsel 27 immediately notified defense counsel of the circumstances and the need for an extension. Counsel 1 also immediately began searching for a replacement expert and began coordinating retention. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff is able to demonstrate good cause and excusable neglect to extend and re- 3 open the current discovery deadlines. 4 C. Discovery Completed to Date. 5 The parties have completed the following discovery in this case: 6 1. Plaintiff has served initial disclosures and one supplement, which includes approximately 7 170 pages of documents and 19 witnesses; 8 2. Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Brian Reyes have served their 9 initial disclosure and two supplements, which includes approximately 598 pages of 10 documents and 19 witnesses; 11 3. Plaintiff propounded his first set of interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests 12 for documents on Defendant LVMPD and his first and second set of interrogatories and 13 requests for documents on Defendant Reyes on July 28, 2025, to which Defendants 14 responded on August 27, 2025; 15 4. Defendants propounded their first set of interrogatories, first set of requests for admission, 16 and first set of requests for production on September 11, 2025, to which Plaintiff responded 17 to the requests for admission on October 7, 2025 and the remaining discovery on October 18 13, 2025; 19 5. Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant Brian Reyes on September 22, 2025; 20 6. Defendant took the deposition of Plaintiff Daveez Booth on September 25, 2025; 21 7. Defendant served their Initial Expert Witness Disclosure on October 30, 2025, identifying 22 1 retained expert witnesses; 23 D. Discovery That Remains to be Completed. 24 The following discovery remains to be completed: 25 1. Designate Plaintiff’s initial expert witnesses; 26 2. Depositions of the newly designated experts (if either party would like to do so); and 27 3. Rebuttal Reports related to the designated experts, if any. 1 E. Proposed Schedule for Completion of Expert Disclosures and Discovery Deadlines 2 Following the unexpected passing of Dr. Colby P. Young, Plaintiffs counsel has since 3 || identified a new expert to step in and provide the necessary opinions previously anticipated from 4 || Dr. Young. Counsel has been in contact with the new expert to facilitate an examination, review of 5 || the medical records, and preparation of the report. It is anticipated that Plaintiff's counsel will 6 || receive a draft report by early- to mid-December. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests an 7 || extension of the expert disclosure deadline to December 30, 2025, and that all existing discovery 8 || deadlines be extended correspondingly based on this new date. Thus, counsel proposes the following 9 || schedule for completion of discovery: 10 Po Existing Deadline Proposed Deadline 11 ||) Expert Disclosure October 30, 2025 December 30, 2025 12 ||| Rebuttal Disclosure December 1, 2025 January 29, 2026 13 January 28, 2026 March 2, 2026 14 ||| Pretrial Order February 27, 2026 April 1, 2026 15 16 IV. CONCLUSION "7 In closing, good cause exists for extending of discovery and Plaintiff's request to re-open 18 the initial expert disclosure deadline is the result of excusable neglect. Accordingly, Plaintiff
19 respectfully requests that his Unopposed Motion to Extend Discovery and Re-Open Initial Expert 20 Disclosures be Granted.
41 Dated this 18™ day of November, 2025.
BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 23 le] Adam Y. Breeden 7 15 SO ORDERED. ADAM J. BREEDEN, ESQ. Dated: November 19. 2025 Nevada Bar No. 8768 25 || Valea: November ly, ALYSSA N. PIRAINO, ESQ. , Nevada Bar No. 14601 ||. LIX 7432 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 101 7 —— Las Vegas, NV 89117-2782 Nancy J. Ko Attorneys for Plaintiff 2g || United States Magistrate Judge