Marquis Aurbach Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 canderson@maclaw.com jnichols@maclaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Lt. Kurt McKenzie, Officer Sonny Uranich, and Officer Patrick Weslowski
ALEXANDRIA DEVORE, an individual, Case Number: 22-cv-01045-CDS-BNW Plaintiff,
vs. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES DEPARTMENT, a municipal corporation; SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO, an (SECOND REQUEST) individual; LIEUTENANT KURT MCKENZIE, an individual, SONNY URANICH, an individual, PATRICK WESLOWSKI, an individual, UNKNOWN OFFICERS 3-12, individuals, Defendants.
Plaintiff Alexandria Devore (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of McLetchie Law, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the “Department” or “LVMPD”), Sheriff Joseph Lombardo (“Lombardo”), Lieutenant Kurt McKenzie (“McKenzie”), Officer Sonny Uranich (“Uranich”) and Officer Patrick Weslowski (“Weslowski”), collectively (“LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, Craig R. Anderson, Esq. and Jackie V. Nichols, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines an additional one hundred twenty (120) days. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes of delay (supplemented information noted in bold-face type). 1. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 2. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department - Set One dated October 26, 2022. 3. Plaintiff’s Request for Production to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department - Set One dated October 28, 2022. 4. Plaintiff Alexandria Devore's Requests for Production to LVMPD - Set Two dated May 16, 2023. 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 2. LVMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Interrogatories - Set One dated November 28, 2023. 3. LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated November 30, 2022. 4. LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated December 7, 2022. 5. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Request for Production - Set One dated December 7, 2022. 6. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. 7. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. The Parties are actively conducting discovery. The Parties are working on depositions of named parties and witnesses. For the reasons explained below, the Parties will need additional time to propound written discovery, respond to written discovery, conduct depositions, and disclose experts. Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension requested. This is the first request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 21 days must be supported by a showing of good cause. Further, requests made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the Parties demonstrate that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. Here, most of the deadlines the Parties seek to extend are outside of the 21- day window, the deadline for initial expert disclosures, however, has passed. As such, the excusable neglect applies to the deadline for initial expert disclosures. The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct discovery. The Parties are working on scheduling the depositions of named parties and witnesses. LVMPD Defendants have discovery responses due on June 19, 2023. Additionally, Plaintiff has sought relief (ECF No. 38) from the Court’s May 19, 2023, Order (ECF No. 37) and also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to name previously unidentified Doe Officers and add additional causes of action (ECF No. 39). As such, the Parties will need additional time to propound written discovery, respond to written discovery, continue to resolve outstanding discovery disputes, and conduct depositions. The Parties contend an extension of discovery deadlines enables them to continue to conduct necessary discovery so that this matter is fairly resolved and give the experts the opportunity to review all discovery produced in this dispute. Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further the resolution of this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. As noted above, the good cause analysis is proper for the majority of dates the Parties seek to extend, however, this request is being made after the expiration of the initial and rebuttal expert disclosures, to which the “excusable neglect” standard is the appropriate standard. The Parties meet both the good cause and excusable neglect standard. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108235, 2013 WL 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As the procedural history of this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in litigating this matter. The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct discovery but an extension is still needed to efficiently continue discovery and manage the case. Plaintiff recently sought leave to file her Second Amended Complaint, which named defendants and added additional claims. Given the recent identification of officers involved in incidents set forth in the Complaint, the Parties require additional time to conduct further discovery and investigate the matter. Additionally, counsel for the Parties in this matter are litigating several other unrelated matters against each other which are well-advanced and have competing demands, and while competing demands of litigation are merely one of many reasons for the instant request, it should be noted that the other litigation between the same counsel involving similar issues can only benefit from expanded discovery so that in other litigation, similar requests can be expedited because they may have been done at least in part in this case; in this case, it would counsel for the Parties are in the prelimi
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Marquis Aurbach Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 canderson@maclaw.com jnichols@maclaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Lt. Kurt McKenzie, Officer Sonny Uranich, and Officer Patrick Weslowski
ALEXANDRIA DEVORE, an individual, Case Number: 22-cv-01045-CDS-BNW Plaintiff,
vs. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES DEPARTMENT, a municipal corporation; SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO, an (SECOND REQUEST) individual; LIEUTENANT KURT MCKENZIE, an individual, SONNY URANICH, an individual, PATRICK WESLOWSKI, an individual, UNKNOWN OFFICERS 3-12, individuals, Defendants.
Plaintiff Alexandria Devore (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of McLetchie Law, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the “Department” or “LVMPD”), Sheriff Joseph Lombardo (“Lombardo”), Lieutenant Kurt McKenzie (“McKenzie”), Officer Sonny Uranich (“Uranich”) and Officer Patrick Weslowski (“Weslowski”), collectively (“LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, Craig R. Anderson, Esq. and Jackie V. Nichols, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines an additional one hundred twenty (120) days. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes of delay (supplemented information noted in bold-face type). 1. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 2. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department - Set One dated October 26, 2022. 3. Plaintiff’s Request for Production to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department - Set One dated October 28, 2022. 4. Plaintiff Alexandria Devore's Requests for Production to LVMPD - Set Two dated May 16, 2023. 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 2. LVMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Interrogatories - Set One dated November 28, 2023. 3. LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated November 30, 2022. 4. LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated December 7, 2022. 5. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Request for Production - Set One dated December 7, 2022. 6. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. 7. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. The Parties are actively conducting discovery. The Parties are working on depositions of named parties and witnesses. For the reasons explained below, the Parties will need additional time to propound written discovery, respond to written discovery, conduct depositions, and disclose experts. Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension requested. This is the first request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 21 days must be supported by a showing of good cause. Further, requests made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the Parties demonstrate that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. Here, most of the deadlines the Parties seek to extend are outside of the 21- day window, the deadline for initial expert disclosures, however, has passed. As such, the excusable neglect applies to the deadline for initial expert disclosures. The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct discovery. The Parties are working on scheduling the depositions of named parties and witnesses. LVMPD Defendants have discovery responses due on June 19, 2023. Additionally, Plaintiff has sought relief (ECF No. 38) from the Court’s May 19, 2023, Order (ECF No. 37) and also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to name previously unidentified Doe Officers and add additional causes of action (ECF No. 39). As such, the Parties will need additional time to propound written discovery, respond to written discovery, continue to resolve outstanding discovery disputes, and conduct depositions. The Parties contend an extension of discovery deadlines enables them to continue to conduct necessary discovery so that this matter is fairly resolved and give the experts the opportunity to review all discovery produced in this dispute. Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further the resolution of this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. As noted above, the good cause analysis is proper for the majority of dates the Parties seek to extend, however, this request is being made after the expiration of the initial and rebuttal expert disclosures, to which the “excusable neglect” standard is the appropriate standard. The Parties meet both the good cause and excusable neglect standard. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108235, 2013 WL 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As the procedural history of this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in litigating this matter. The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct discovery but an extension is still needed to efficiently continue discovery and manage the case. Plaintiff recently sought leave to file her Second Amended Complaint, which named defendants and added additional claims. Given the recent identification of officers involved in incidents set forth in the Complaint, the Parties require additional time to conduct further discovery and investigate the matter. Additionally, counsel for the Parties in this matter are litigating several other unrelated matters against each other which are well-advanced and have competing demands, and while competing demands of litigation are merely one of many reasons for the instant request, it should be noted that the other litigation between the same counsel involving similar issues can only benefit from expanded discovery so that in other litigation, similar requests can be expedited because they may have been done at least in part in this case; in this case, it would counsel for the Parties are in the preliminary stages of settlement discussions regarding this and other matters being litigated stemming from the Black Lives Matter Protests. Finally, counsel for Plaintiff is preparing for a trial in July that requires significant time and attention. Further, counsel for Defendants is out of the jurisdiction for two (2) weeks during June, compounding the need for an extension of the discovery deadlines. The Parties meet the excusable neglect standard as well. There are at least four (4) factors in determining whether neglect is excusable: “(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.” Erection Co. v. Archer W. Contractors, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-0612-MMD-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159029, at *7 (D. Nev. Nov. 6, 2013) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The determination of whether neglect is excusable is ultimately an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. In this matter, the first factor concerning prejudice to the opposing party does not apply, as the Parties have agreed to stipulate to an extension of time. The three (3) remaining factors also weigh in favor of finding excusable neglect. In addition to submitting this as a joint stipulation, the length of delay is modest. The Parties are only now moving to extend the initial expert deadline because recently uncovered facts and information has illuminated the need potential utilization of experts in this matter. In terms of potential impact on the proceedings, those too are minimal, particularly in light of Plaintiff’s outstanding Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion for Relief and the Parties’ diligence in litigating this matter. Further, discovery is moving forward in a steady pace and the Parties are continuing to conduct discovery and coordinate depositions. The third factor the court considers is the reason for the delay. Here, the Parties moved diligently to extend the deadlines for initial and rebuttal experts once recognizing the need to potentially utilize experts in this matter. Lastly, the Parties bring this request jointly in good faith and not for any purpose of delay. DEADLINES Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline Amend Pleadings and Add Parties February 7, 2023 Past/Unchanged Initial Expert Disclosures March 9, 2023 September 7, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 8, 2023 October 7, 2023 Discovery Cut-Off August 7, 2023 December 5, 2023 Dispositive Motions September 5, 2023 January 3, 2024 Pretrial Order October 5, 2023 February 2, 2024 (If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after the decision of the dispositive motions or further order of the Court.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request 2 that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended additional one hundred 3 twenty (120) days so that the parties may conduct additional discovery and conduct 4 depositions. Dated this 6 day of June, 2023. Dated this 6th day of June, 2023. MCLETCHIE LAW MARQUIS AURBACH 7 g By: /s/ Margaret A. McLetchie By: __ /s/ Jackie V. Nichols Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 9 Nevada Bar No. 10931 Nevada Bar No. 6882 N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. 10 Nevada Bar No. 15297 Nevada Bar No. 14246 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. 10001 Park Run Drive 11 Nevada Bar No. 12658 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 602 South 10th Street Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas © Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Metropolitan Police Department, 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff Alexandria Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Lt. Kurt = Devore McKenzie, Officer Sonny Uranich, and 14 Officer Patrick Weslowski 5 x 422 15 16 ORDER IT IS SOORDERED this 8!) day of June , 2023. 18 19 KK sp La WEE 0 United States District Court Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 7 of 8 □□
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST) with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court by using the court’s CM/ECF system on the 6th day of June, 2023. I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following non-CM/ECF participants: N/A
/s/ Krista Busch An employee of Marquis Aurbach