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. ERRATA TO HIS UNOPPOSED MOTION
13 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND RE- DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the OPEN THE INITIAL EXPERT 14 State of Nevada; BRIAN REYES, an DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST) 15 individual,
16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff DAVEEZ BOOTH by and through his attorneys of record, BREEDEN & 18 ASSOCIATES PLLC, hereby files his Errata to his Motion to Extend Discovery and Re-Open the 19 Initial Expert Deadline in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR 26-3. Plaintiff files this 20 errata as Counsel noticed the close of discovery date was erroneously omitted from the proposed 21 schedule. Accordingly, the due dates for dispositive motions and the joint pre-trial order have been 22 adjusted. 23 Undersigned counsel has conferred with Craig Anderson, Esq., counsel for Defendants and 24 he does not object to the granting of relief requested herein. 25 I. INTRODUCTION 26 Plaintiff and his counsel respectfully ask this Court to extend discovery primarily to allow 27 Plaintiff to designate his expert due to circumstances beyond his control. Plaintiff had timely 1 retained Colby P. Young, M.D. with Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, 2 Plaintiff’s counsel received notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. This is just 3 days before the initial expert deadline of October 30. 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately informed 4 defense counsel of the issue and began to identify a new expert. However, Plaintiff’s counsel needed 5 to identify the expected turnaround time from the new expert prior to coming to the Court and 6 requesting additional time. 7 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 8 Plaintiff BOOTH, through his counsel, filed this action on May 27, 2025 in the Eighth 9 Judicial District Court of Nevada, Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 23, 2025 10 [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2024, Officer Defendant REYES and LVMPD 11 violated his civil rights. Plaintiff’s claimed injuries include a fracture of the right wrist. 12 The timeline of relevant procedural events is as follows: Plaintiff filed this case on May 27, 13 2025, in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Defendants removed the action to this Court 14 on June 23, 2025 [ECF No. 1]. On July 22, 2025, the Court issued the Discovery Plan and 15 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 11]. This sets the deadline to disclose experts as October 30, 2025, and 16 the close of discovery as December 29, 2025. 17 Prior to the expert disclosure deadline, Plaintiff retained Dr. Colby P. Young, M.D. with 18 Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, Plaintiff’s counsel received 19 notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. Being that the expert disclosure deadline 20 was just days away, Plaintiff’s counsel immediately reached out to Craig Anderson, counsel for 21 Defendants to advise him of the situation and let him know that we would need to request an 22 extension to disclose experts. Additionally, Plaintiff immediately set out to retain a new expert to 23 opine on Plaintiff’s wrist injury. 24 III. LAW AND ARGUMENT 25 A. Legal Standard to Extend the Expert Disclosure Deadline 26 The district court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation and in 27 issuing and enforcing scheduling orders. Williams v. James River Group Incorporated, 627 F. Supp. 1 the party must demonstrate good cause for extending discovery beyond the established deadline and 2 excusable neglect for their failure to move for an extension before the deadline expired. See 3 Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4); see also LR 26-3. The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant's 4 diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). According to 5 LR 26-3, “[a] request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the 6 movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” "The 7 determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four 8 factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 9 impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good 10 faith." Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer 11 Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 12 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993)); see also Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009). 13 B. Good Cause Exists to Reopen Expert Disclosures and the Need to Re-Open the Initial Expert Deadline is the Result of Excusable Neglect 14 The following details the reasons why Plaintiff Booth’s Counsel believes there is good cause 15 to extend discovery in this matter. The entire reason is that the Plaintiff had timely retained Dr. 16 Colby P. Young, M.D., with Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, 2025, 17 Plaintiff’s counsel received notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. This is just 18 days before the initial expert deadline of October 30. 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel exercised extreme 19 diligence and immediately began to identify a new expert but thought it was best to identify the 20 expected turnaround time from the new expert prior to coming to the Court and requesting additional 21 time. 22 The need to re-open the initial expert disclosure deadline is the result of excusable neglect. 23 So long as the remaining deadlines are extended along with the initial expert deadline, Defendants 24 will suffer no prejudice as they will have ample time to rebut Plaintiff’s new hand expert and depose 25 said expert if they wish to do so. Being that this case was filed in May 2025 and a trial date has not 26 yet been set, the length of delay and its impact on the proceedings will be minimal. The reason for 27 the delay is the sudden and unexpected death of Plaintiff’s expert just days before the initial expert 1 disclosure deadline. Lastly, Plaintiff has acted in good faith. This is clearly a situation out of 2 Plaintiff’s control. Moreover, after being notified of Dr. Young’s tragic passing, Plaintiff’s counsel 3 immediately notified defense counsel of the circumstances and the need for an extension. Counsel 4 also immediately began searching for a replacement expert and began coordinating retention. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is able to demonstrate good cause and excusable neglect to extend and re- 6 open the current discovery deadlines. 7 C. Discovery Completed to Date. 8 The parties have completed the following discovery in this case: 9 1. Plaintiff has served initial disclosures and one supplement, which includes approximately 10 170 pages of documents and 19 witnesses; 11 2.
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. ERRATA TO HIS UNOPPOSED MOTION
13 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND RE- DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the OPEN THE INITIAL EXPERT 14 State of Nevada; BRIAN REYES, an DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST) 15 individual,
16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff DAVEEZ BOOTH by and through his attorneys of record, BREEDEN & 18 ASSOCIATES PLLC, hereby files his Errata to his Motion to Extend Discovery and Re-Open the 19 Initial Expert Deadline in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR 26-3. Plaintiff files this 20 errata as Counsel noticed the close of discovery date was erroneously omitted from the proposed 21 schedule. Accordingly, the due dates for dispositive motions and the joint pre-trial order have been 22 adjusted. 23 Undersigned counsel has conferred with Craig Anderson, Esq., counsel for Defendants and 24 he does not object to the granting of relief requested herein. 25 I. INTRODUCTION 26 Plaintiff and his counsel respectfully ask this Court to extend discovery primarily to allow 27 Plaintiff to designate his expert due to circumstances beyond his control. Plaintiff had timely 1 retained Colby P. Young, M.D. with Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, 2 Plaintiff’s counsel received notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. This is just 3 days before the initial expert deadline of October 30. 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately informed 4 defense counsel of the issue and began to identify a new expert. However, Plaintiff’s counsel needed 5 to identify the expected turnaround time from the new expert prior to coming to the Court and 6 requesting additional time. 7 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 8 Plaintiff BOOTH, through his counsel, filed this action on May 27, 2025 in the Eighth 9 Judicial District Court of Nevada, Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 23, 2025 10 [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2024, Officer Defendant REYES and LVMPD 11 violated his civil rights. Plaintiff’s claimed injuries include a fracture of the right wrist. 12 The timeline of relevant procedural events is as follows: Plaintiff filed this case on May 27, 13 2025, in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Defendants removed the action to this Court 14 on June 23, 2025 [ECF No. 1]. On July 22, 2025, the Court issued the Discovery Plan and 15 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 11]. This sets the deadline to disclose experts as October 30, 2025, and 16 the close of discovery as December 29, 2025. 17 Prior to the expert disclosure deadline, Plaintiff retained Dr. Colby P. Young, M.D. with 18 Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, Plaintiff’s counsel received 19 notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. Being that the expert disclosure deadline 20 was just days away, Plaintiff’s counsel immediately reached out to Craig Anderson, counsel for 21 Defendants to advise him of the situation and let him know that we would need to request an 22 extension to disclose experts. Additionally, Plaintiff immediately set out to retain a new expert to 23 opine on Plaintiff’s wrist injury. 24 III. LAW AND ARGUMENT 25 A. Legal Standard to Extend the Expert Disclosure Deadline 26 The district court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation and in 27 issuing and enforcing scheduling orders. Williams v. James River Group Incorporated, 627 F. Supp. 1 the party must demonstrate good cause for extending discovery beyond the established deadline and 2 excusable neglect for their failure to move for an extension before the deadline expired. See 3 Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4); see also LR 26-3. The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant's 4 diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). According to 5 LR 26-3, “[a] request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the 6 movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” "The 7 determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four 8 factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 9 impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good 10 faith." Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer 11 Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 12 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993)); see also Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009). 13 B. Good Cause Exists to Reopen Expert Disclosures and the Need to Re-Open the Initial Expert Deadline is the Result of Excusable Neglect 14 The following details the reasons why Plaintiff Booth’s Counsel believes there is good cause 15 to extend discovery in this matter. The entire reason is that the Plaintiff had timely retained Dr. 16 Colby P. Young, M.D., with Hand Surgery Specialists of Nevada. On Monday, October 27, 2025, 17 Plaintiff’s counsel received notification that Dr. Young had unexpectedly passed away. This is just 18 days before the initial expert deadline of October 30. 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel exercised extreme 19 diligence and immediately began to identify a new expert but thought it was best to identify the 20 expected turnaround time from the new expert prior to coming to the Court and requesting additional 21 time. 22 The need to re-open the initial expert disclosure deadline is the result of excusable neglect. 23 So long as the remaining deadlines are extended along with the initial expert deadline, Defendants 24 will suffer no prejudice as they will have ample time to rebut Plaintiff’s new hand expert and depose 25 said expert if they wish to do so. Being that this case was filed in May 2025 and a trial date has not 26 yet been set, the length of delay and its impact on the proceedings will be minimal. The reason for 27 the delay is the sudden and unexpected death of Plaintiff’s expert just days before the initial expert 1 disclosure deadline. Lastly, Plaintiff has acted in good faith. This is clearly a situation out of 2 Plaintiff’s control. Moreover, after being notified of Dr. Young’s tragic passing, Plaintiff’s counsel 3 immediately notified defense counsel of the circumstances and the need for an extension. Counsel 4 also immediately began searching for a replacement expert and began coordinating retention. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is able to demonstrate good cause and excusable neglect to extend and re- 6 open the current discovery deadlines. 7 C. Discovery Completed to Date. 8 The parties have completed the following discovery in this case: 9 1. Plaintiff has served initial disclosures and one supplement, which includes approximately 10 170 pages of documents and 19 witnesses; 11 2. Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Brian Reyes have served their 12 initial disclosure and two supplements, which includes approximately 598 pages of 13 documents and 19 witnesses; 14 3. Plaintiff propounded his first set of interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests 15 for documents on Defendant LVMPD and his first and second set of interrogatories and 16 requests for documents on Defendant Reyes on July 28, 2025, to which Defendants 17 responded on August 27, 2025; 18 4. Defendants propounded their first set of interrogatories, first set of requests for admission, 19 and first set of requests for production on September 11, 2025, to which Plaintiff responded 20 to the requests for admission on October 7, 2025 and the remaining discovery on October 21 13, 2025; 22 5. Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant Brian Reyes on September 22, 2025; 23 6. Defendant took the deposition of Plaintiff Daveez Booth on September 25, 2025; 24 7. Defendant served their Initial Expert Witness Disclosure on October 30, 2025, identifying 25 1 retained expert witnesses; 26 D. Discovery That Remains to be Completed. 27 The following discovery remains to be completed: 1 2. Depositions of the newly designated experts (if either party would like to do so); and 2 3. Rebuttal Reports related to the designated experts, if any. 3 E. Proposed Schedule for Completion of Expert Disclosures and Discovery Deadlines 4 Following the unexpected passing of Dr. Colby P. Young, Plaintiff’s counsel has since 5 identified a new expert to step in and provide the necessary opinions previously anticipated from 6 Dr. Young. Counsel has been in contact with the new expert to facilitate an examination, review of 7 the medical records, and preparation of the report. It is anticipated that Plaintiff’s counsel will 8 receive a draft report by early- to mid-December. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests an 9 extension of the expert disclosure deadline to December 30, 2025, and that all existing discovery 10 deadlines be extended correspondingly based on this new date. Thus, counsel proposes the following 11 schedule for completion of discovery: 12 Existing Deadline Proposed Deadline 13 Expert Disclosure October 30, 2025 December 30, 2025 14 Rebuttal Disclosure December 1, 2025 January 29, 2026 15 Close of Discovery December 29, 2025 March 2, 2026 16 Dispositive Motions January 28, 2026 April 1, 2026 17 Pretrial Order February 27, 2026 May 1, 2026 18
19 20 21 [remainder of page intentionally blank] 22 23 24
25 26 27 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 In closing, good cause exists for extending of discovery and Plaintiff's request to re-open 3 || the initial expert disclosure deadline is the result of excusable neglect. Accordingly, Plaintiff 4 || respectfully requests that his Unopposed Motion to Extend Discovery and Re-Open Initial Expert 5 || Disclosures be Granted. 6 Dated this 5" day of January, 2026. 7 BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC |e] Adam Y. Breeden ADAM J. BREEDEN, ESQ. 10 Nevada Bar No. 8768 ALYSSA N. PIRAINO, ESQ. 11 Nevada Bar No. 14601 7432 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 101 2 Las Vegas, NV 89117-2782 B Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 15 16 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: January 6, 2026 18 0 ARS Nancy J. Ko 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on the 5th day of January, 2026, I served a copy of the foregoing legal 3 document PLAINTIFF DAVEEZ BOOTH’S ERRATA TO HIS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 4 EXTEND DISCOVERY AND RE-OPEN THE INITIAL EXPERT DEADLINE (FIRST 5 REQUEST) via the method indicated below: 6 X Through the Court’s ECF/CM system on all registered users 7 Pursuant to FRCP 5, by placing a copy in the US mail, postage pre-paid to 8 the following counsel of record or parties in proper person: 9 Craig Anderson, Esq. 10 MARQUIS AURBACH 10001 Park Run Drive 11 Las Vegas, NV 89145
12 Via receipt of copy (proof of service to follow) 13
14 An Attorney or Employee of the following firm:
15 /s/ Kirsten Brown 16 KIRSTEN BROWN OF BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27