1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 2 | |MCLETCHIE LAW 602 South Tenth Street 3 | |Las Vegas, NV 89101 4 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 Fax: (702) 425-8220 5 | |Email: efile@nvlitigation.com ‘ Counsel for Plaintiff Alexandria Devore
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 ALEXANDRIA DEVORE, an individual, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01045-CDS-EJY 10 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO vs. EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN 11 AND SCHEDULING ORDER LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEADLINES 12 DEPARTMENT, a municipal corporation; 13 | |SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO, an (FIFTH REQUEST) individual; LIEUTENANT KURT £282 14||MCKENZIE, an individual, SONNY 15 URANICH, an individual, PATRICK 3 2 WESLOWSKI, an individual, UNKNOWN =° 16 | | OFFICERS 3-12, individuals, 17 Defendants. 18 . Plaintiff Alexandria Devore (‘Plaintiff’), by and through her counsel of record, 19 Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of McLetchie Law, and Defendant, 20 the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the “Department” or “LVMPD”), by and 21 through their counsel of record, Nick D. Crosby, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate 22 and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines an additional sixty 23 (60) days. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes of delay 24 (supplemented information noted in bold-face type). 25 26 27 28
1} /I. STATUS OF DISCOVERY. 3 1. Plaintiffs Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 5 2. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 6 Department - Set One dated October 26, 2022. 7 3. Plaintiff's Request for Production to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan 8 Police Department - Set One dated October 28, 2022. 7 4. Plaintiff Alexandria Devore's Requests for Production to LVMPD - Set Two '0 dated May 16, 2023. " 5. Plaintiff Devore’s Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for = Production of Documents dated July 12, 2023. 14 6. Plaintiff Devore’s Answers to LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories dated 15 July 12, 2023. 16 7. Plaintiff's First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 17 Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated July 12, 2023. 19 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 20 Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 21 2. LVMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Interrogatories - Set 22 One dated November 28, 2023. 23 3. LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 24 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1)} dated November 30, 2022. 25 4. LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 26 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated December 7, 2022. 27 28
1 5. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Request for 2 Production - Set One dated December 7, 2022. 3 6. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. 5 7. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff 6 Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. 8. LVMPD’s Responses to Alexandria Devore’s Requests for Production □□ Documents - Set Two dated July 17, 2023. ° 9. LVMPD Defendants’ Third Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and ° Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated July 17, 2023. Il. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. = The Parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations in an effort to resolve Plaintiff's claims. The Parties are working on depositions of named parties and witnesses. 13 For the reasons explained below, the Parties will need additional time to propound written 6 discovery, respond to written discovery, conduct depositions, and disclose experts. ~ Il. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension requested. This is the fifth request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this
50 matter. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a
31 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
33 supported by a showing of good cause. Further, requests made after the expiration of the
34 subject deadline will not be granted unless the Parties demonstrate that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. Here, all of the deadlines the Parties seek to extend are outside of the 21-day window.
57 The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct
38 discovery. The Parties are working on scheduling the depositions of named parties and
1 | |witnesses. The Parties previously entered into a stay of the discovery deadlines pending 2 | |settlement discussions, but to no avail. (See ECF Nos. 57 and 60.) The Parties contend an 3 | J}extension of discovery deadlines enables them to continue to conduct necessary discovery so 4 | |that this matter is fairly resolved and give the experts the opportunity to review all discovery 5 | |produced in this dispute. Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further 6 | |the resolution of this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. 7 The Parties thus respectfully request an extension of time to extend the discovery 8 | |in this matter to enable to them to conduct necessary discovery in this matter and so that this 9 | |matter is fairly resolved on the merits. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if 10 | |1t cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa 11 | |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 13 | |F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil 14 | |Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to 15 | |secure the Just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As = 16 | |the procedural history of this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in litigating this 17||matter. The Parties are continuing to engage in written discovery and have begun 18 | |coordinating the taking of depositions. 19 Additionally, counsel for the Parties in this matter are litigating several other 20 | junrelated matters against each other which are well-advanced and have competing demands, 21 | jand while competing demands of litigation are merely one of many reasons for the instant 22 | |request, it should be noted that the other litigation between the same counsel involving 23 | |similar issues can only benefit from expanded discovery so that in other litigation, similar 24 | |requests can be expedited because they may have been done at least in part in this case; in 25 | |this case, it would be a matter of a universal benefit to the ends of justice and future 26 | |efficiencies. 27 As noted in the previous stipulation extending discovery in this matter (ECF No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 2 | |MCLETCHIE LAW 602 South Tenth Street 3 | |Las Vegas, NV 89101 4 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 Fax: (702) 425-8220 5 | |Email: efile@nvlitigation.com ‘ Counsel for Plaintiff Alexandria Devore
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 ALEXANDRIA DEVORE, an individual, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01045-CDS-EJY 10 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO vs. EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN 11 AND SCHEDULING ORDER LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEADLINES 12 DEPARTMENT, a municipal corporation; 13 | |SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO, an (FIFTH REQUEST) individual; LIEUTENANT KURT £282 14||MCKENZIE, an individual, SONNY 15 URANICH, an individual, PATRICK 3 2 WESLOWSKI, an individual, UNKNOWN =° 16 | | OFFICERS 3-12, individuals, 17 Defendants. 18 . Plaintiff Alexandria Devore (‘Plaintiff’), by and through her counsel of record, 19 Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of McLetchie Law, and Defendant, 20 the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the “Department” or “LVMPD”), by and 21 through their counsel of record, Nick D. Crosby, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate 22 and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines an additional sixty 23 (60) days. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes of delay 24 (supplemented information noted in bold-face type). 25 26 27 28
1} /I. STATUS OF DISCOVERY. 3 1. Plaintiffs Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 5 2. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 6 Department - Set One dated October 26, 2022. 7 3. Plaintiff's Request for Production to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan 8 Police Department - Set One dated October 28, 2022. 7 4. Plaintiff Alexandria Devore's Requests for Production to LVMPD - Set Two '0 dated May 16, 2023. " 5. Plaintiff Devore’s Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for = Production of Documents dated July 12, 2023. 14 6. Plaintiff Devore’s Answers to LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories dated 15 July 12, 2023. 16 7. Plaintiff's First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 17 Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated July 12, 2023. 19 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 20 Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 21 2. LVMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Interrogatories - Set 22 One dated November 28, 2023. 23 3. LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 24 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1)} dated November 30, 2022. 25 4. LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 26 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated December 7, 2022. 27 28
1 5. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Request for 2 Production - Set One dated December 7, 2022. 3 6. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. 5 7. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff 6 Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. 8. LVMPD’s Responses to Alexandria Devore’s Requests for Production □□ Documents - Set Two dated July 17, 2023. ° 9. LVMPD Defendants’ Third Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and ° Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated July 17, 2023. Il. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. = The Parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations in an effort to resolve Plaintiff's claims. The Parties are working on depositions of named parties and witnesses. 13 For the reasons explained below, the Parties will need additional time to propound written 6 discovery, respond to written discovery, conduct depositions, and disclose experts. ~ Il. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension requested. This is the fifth request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this
50 matter. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a
31 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
33 supported by a showing of good cause. Further, requests made after the expiration of the
34 subject deadline will not be granted unless the Parties demonstrate that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. Here, all of the deadlines the Parties seek to extend are outside of the 21-day window.
57 The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct
38 discovery. The Parties are working on scheduling the depositions of named parties and
1 | |witnesses. The Parties previously entered into a stay of the discovery deadlines pending 2 | |settlement discussions, but to no avail. (See ECF Nos. 57 and 60.) The Parties contend an 3 | J}extension of discovery deadlines enables them to continue to conduct necessary discovery so 4 | |that this matter is fairly resolved and give the experts the opportunity to review all discovery 5 | |produced in this dispute. Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further 6 | |the resolution of this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. 7 The Parties thus respectfully request an extension of time to extend the discovery 8 | |in this matter to enable to them to conduct necessary discovery in this matter and so that this 9 | |matter is fairly resolved on the merits. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if 10 | |1t cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa 11 | |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 13 | |F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil 14 | |Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to 15 | |secure the Just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As = 16 | |the procedural history of this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in litigating this 17||matter. The Parties are continuing to engage in written discovery and have begun 18 | |coordinating the taking of depositions. 19 Additionally, counsel for the Parties in this matter are litigating several other 20 | junrelated matters against each other which are well-advanced and have competing demands, 21 | jand while competing demands of litigation are merely one of many reasons for the instant 22 | |request, it should be noted that the other litigation between the same counsel involving 23 | |similar issues can only benefit from expanded discovery so that in other litigation, similar 24 | |requests can be expedited because they may have been done at least in part in this case; in 25 | |this case, it would be a matter of a universal benefit to the ends of justice and future 26 | |efficiencies. 27 As noted in the previous stipulation extending discovery in this matter (ECF No. 28 | |66), Counsel for Plaintiffs have faced unprecedented personal and professional challenges in
1 | |2024, including the deaths of two parents and changes in attorneys at the firm. Since then, 2 | |counsel for Plaintiffs have been diligently working through the backlog these challenges have 3 | |caused, but still need more time for scheduling the final portions of discovery. These 4 | |circumstances further compound the need for an extension of the discovery deadlines. Thus, 5 | |the standards to extend all deadlines, including the expert deadlines, are satisfied here. IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING DEADLINES 7 Po Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline Amend Pleadings and Add February 7, 2023 Past Due/Unchanged 8 Parties 9 Initial Expert Disclosures August 9, 2024 Past Due/Unchanged | 10 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures December 9, 2024 Past Due/Unchanged M Discovery Cut-Off January 6, 2025 March 7, 2025
2 13 Pretrial Order March 6, 2025 May 5, 2025 df a 2 dispositive motions are filed, ace 2 14 the deadline shall be suspended until thirty (30) Bes 15 days after the decision of the dispositive motions or further 16 order of the Court.) 17 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request 18 | |that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended additional sixty (60) 19 | |days so that the parties may conduct additional discovery, conduct depositions and efficiently 20 | |litigate the case based on the merits. 21 22 23 Dated this 16 day of December, 2024. Dated this 16™ day of December, 2024. 25 26 By: _/s/Leo S. Wolpert By: _/s/ Nick D. Crosby Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Nick D. Crosby, Esq. 27 Nevada Bar No. 10931 Nevada Bar No. 8996 28 | |! 60 days from February 5, 2025, is Sunday, April 6, 2025.
1 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. 10001 Park Run Drive Nevada Bar No. 12658 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 2 602 South 10th Street Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Metropolitan Police Department 3 Attorneys for Plaintiff Alexandria 4 Devore 5 7 8 The above Stipulation is hereby GRANTED. ISSO ORDERED. 10 UNITED STA ISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 DATED: December 16, 2024
ES 3 13
6 s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28