Fleming v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 20, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00177
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 | |MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 2 | IMCLETCHIE LAW 3 602 South Tenth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 4 | |Telephone: (702) 728-5300; Fax: (702) 425-8220 Email: efile@nvlitigation.com Counsel for Plaintiff William Fleming 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 || WILLIAM FLEMING, an individual, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00177-RFB-EJY 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VS. EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND 12 SCHEDULING ORDER LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE | DEADLINES 13 || DEPARTMENT, a Municipal Corporation; 14 OFFICER JAVON CHARLES, an (FIRST REQUEST) individual; OFFICER TIMOTHY NYE, an 15 individual; OFFICER GABRIEL LEA, an individual; OFFICER CODY GRAY, an 16 individual; OFFICER SUPREET KAUR, as 7 an individual; OFFICER HALEY ANDERSEN, as an individual; SERGEANT 18 JOHN JOHNSON, as. an _ individual; CAPTAIN DORI KOREN, as an individual; 19|| OFFICER RICHARD PALACIOS, as an 20 individual; OFFICER PATRICK WHEARTY, as an individual; OFFICER 21 WOOD, as an individual; DOE OFFICERS I — X, individuals. 22 3 Defendants. 24 Plaintiff WILLIAM FLEMING (‘Plaintiff’), by and through his respective 25 | |counsel, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), 26 | |Officer Javon Charles, Officer Timothy Nye, Officer Gabriel Lea, Officer Cody Gray, 27 | |Officer Supreet Kaur, Officer Haley Andersen, Sergeant John Johnson, Captain Dori Koren, 28 | |Officer Richard Palacios, Officer Patrick Whearty, Officer Wood, and Doe Officers I — X

1 | |(collectively, “LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel (collectively 2 | |the “Parties”), hereby agree and jointly stipulate to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling 3 | |Order deadlines an additional sixty (60) days. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith 4 | |and not for purposes of delay. 5//I1. STATUS OF DISCOVERY 6 A. PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY 7 1. Plaintiffs Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 8 | |26, dated April 5, 2023. 9 2. Plaintiffs First Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and 10 | |Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26, dated June 14, 2023. 11 3. Plaintiff William Fleming’s Requests for Production to Defendant Las 12 | | Vegas Metropolitan Police Department — Set One, dated June 14, 2023. 13 B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY 14 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 15 | |Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated April 5, 2023. 16 | | II. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 17 The Parties are actively conducting discovery. For the reasons explained below, the 18 | |Parties will need additional time to review documents produced in the initial disclosures, 19 | |propound written discovery, and conduct depositions. 20) =SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY 21 This is the first request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. The 22||Parties request that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended an 23 | |additional sixty (60) days so the Parties may continue to conduct discovery. The Parties 24 | acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in 25 | |a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than twenty-one (21) days before 26 | |the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within twenty-one (21) days of the 27 | |subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause. Here, all the deadlines the 28 | |Parties seek to extend are outside of the twenty-one (21) day window except the deadline to

1 | Jamend pleadings and add parties. However, good cause exists to extend all the deadlines, 2 | |including the deadline to amend pleadings and add parties. 3 The Parties respectfully request an extension of time to extend the discovery to 4 | lenable to them to conduct necessary discovery and so that this matter is fairly resolved on 5 | |the merits. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met 6 | |despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 7 | |2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108235, 2013 WL 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. 8 | |Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 9 | |1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be 10 | |construed, administered, and employed by the court and the Parties to secure the just, speedy, 11 | land inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). 12 The Parties recently exchanged initial disclosures and have been diligently 13 | |conducting discovery and continue to conduct discovery. Plaintiff is also continuing to 14 | |review a voluminous number of body-worn camera (BWC) footage videos, many of which 15 | jidentify previously unidentified Doe Officer Defendants. Given the volume of BWC footage, 16 | |number of incidents that are the subject of Plaintiff's Complaint, and the need to identify 17 | |Doe Officers, good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines, particularly the deadline 18 | |to amend pleadings and add parties. Further, the Parties contend an extension of the discovery 19 | | deadlines is necessary in light of Defendants’ outstanding Motion for Partial Dismissal (ECF 20] |No. 11). 21 Additionally, counsel for the Parties in this matter are litigating several other 22 | |unrelated matters (including against each other) which have competing demands. Counsel 23 | |for Plaintiff is preparing for trial in July which requires significant time and attention, and 24 | |counsel for Defendants will be out of the jurisdiction for two (2) weeks in June, further 25 | |compounding the need for an extension of the discovery deadlines. While competing 26 | |demands of litigation are merely one of many reasons for the instant request, it should be 27 | |noted that the other litigation between the same counsel involving similar issues can only 28 | |benefit from the completion of discovery in this matter so that in other litigation, similar

1 | |requests can be expedited and can further the resolution of those matters and the interests of 2 | |justice. Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further the resolution of 3 | |this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING 5 DEADLINES 6 : Parties 1 Db Pretrial Order November 17, 2023 January 16, 2024 (if dispositive ue SS ESS 13 decision of the dispositive motions or 14 further order of the Court.) 15 | \/// 16 | |/// 17 | \/// 1g | |/// 19 | |/// 90 | \/// a1 | \/// 92 \/// 93} \/// 24 | |/// 25 | |/// 26 | |/// 27 ee 28 ! Sixty (60) days from June 20, 2023, is Saturday, August 19, 2023. 2 Sixty (60) days from October 18, 2023, is Sunday, December 17, 2023.

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 sixty (60) 3 days so that the parties may conduct additional discovery, conduct depositions and efficiently 4 litigate the case based on the merits. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 7 Dated this 20" day of June, 2023. Dated this 20" day of June, 2023. 8 MCLETCHIE LAW MARQUIS AURBACH 9 10 By: /s/ Margaret A. McLetchie By: /s/ Jackie V. Nichols Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. 11 Nevada Bar No. 10931 Nevada Bar No. 14246 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. 10001 Park Run Drive 12 Nevada Bar No. 12658 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 13 Pieter M. O’Leary, Esq. Attorney for Defendants Nevada Bar No. 15297 14 602 South 10th Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 15 Counsel for Plaintiff 16 17 18 19 ORDER 20 21 UNITED} STAT GISTRATE JUDGE 22 Dated: June 20, 2023 23 24 25 26 27 28