Garay v. City of Las Vegas
Opinion
1 Belinda Escobosa Helzer (pro hac vice) Adrian Hernandez (pro hac vice) 2 Ernest Herrera (pro hac vice) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 3 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor 4 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 5 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 bescobosa@malde f.org 6 ahernandez@maldef.org eherrera@maldef.org 7 F.Travis Buchanan, Esq. 8 NV Bar No. 9371 The Cochran Firm – Las Vegas 9 701 E. Bridger, Suite 540 Las Vegas, NV 89101 10 Telephone: (702) 331-5478 Facsimile: (702) 629-6919 11 FtbLaw@gmail.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 16 ALICIA INES MOYA GARAY, JUAN Case No. 2:20-cv-00119-GMN-EJY 17 JAIME LOPEZ-JIMENEZ, and ARRIBA LAS VEGAS WORKER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 18 CENTER, TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 19 Plaintiffs, (FIRST REQUEST) 20 vs. 21 CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a municipality; MICHELE FREEMAN, in her official 22 capacity as City of Las Vegas Chief of Department of Public Safety; 23 BANANTO SMITH, in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of Detention 24 Services; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 2 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-3, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of 3 record, hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend the Discovery Deadlines in the above- 4 captioned case. Plaintiffs Alicia Ines Moya Garay and Juan Jaime Lopez-Jimenez (“Plaintiffs”) 5 and Defendants City of Las Vegas, et al. (“Defendants”) stipulate and request an extension of the
6 “Amending pleadings / adding parties” and “Merits experts’ disclosures” deadlines by six weeks. 7 In support of this Stipulation and Request, the parties state as follows: 8 9 A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 10 Plaintiffs Alicia Ines Moya Garay and Juan Jaime Lopez-Jimenez (“Plaintiffs”) and 11 Defendants City of Las Vegas, et al. (“Defendants”) made their initial disclosures on June 16, 2020. 12 Plaintiffs propounded their First Set of Interrogatories on August 5, 2020. On August 31, 2020, 13 Defendants requested an extension to respond to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, which 14 Plaintiffs granted. On September 2, 2020 Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Admission 15 and Requests for Production of Documents. On September 10, 2020, Defendants served their 16 responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. 17 18 B. DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 19 The parties in this case continue to propound and respond to written discovery and must 20 conduct depositions, in addition to making their expert disclosures. 21 22 C. REASON FOR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES 23 i.Deadline for amending pleadings/adding parties: September 15, 2020 24 Plaintiffs intend to seek leave of Court to amend the First Amended Complaint to allege the 25 true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants, and the roles they played, once their identities 26 and/or manner of participation is ascertained. An extension of the discovery deadlines requires 27 good and just cause. See LR 26-3; see also Chambers Practices of The Honorable Gloria M. 28 Navarro, United States District Judge at 1. A party may show good cause to modify a discovery 1 schedule date “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 2 extension.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 3 Prejudice to “the party opposing the modification” may also be relevant. See id. 4 Plaintiffs continue diligently to try to ascertain the names and capacities of the DOE 5 Defendants through written discovery. Plaintiffs granted Defendants a one week extension to
6 respond to their First Set of Interrogatories. Defendants served their responses on September 10, 7 2020. Defendants raised numerous objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiffs 8 have met and conferred with Defendants to resolve the present discovery dispute. 9 Plaintiffs cannot move for leave to filed an amended complaint that alleges a plausible claim 10 for relief against each defendant unless it substitutes the true names and capacities of “those who 11 personally participated in the deprivation of his right” for the DOE Defendants currently named. 12 See Cepero v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, No. 211CV01421JADGWF, 2018 WL 5043775, at 13 *7 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 211CV01421JADGWF, 2018 14 WL 5726176 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2018) (citing Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002)). 15 Despite Plaintiffs’ diligence in this regard, as demonstrated by discovery requests and the parties’ 16 efforts to confer on the discovery that seeks to identify the relevant officers, Plaintiffs have been 17 unable to ascertain the true names and capacities of the officers. Plaintiffs will therefore be unable 18 to move for leave to file an amended complaint by the current deadline of September 15, 2020. 19 Because of Plaintiffs’ diligence and because Defendants do not oppose the request, Plaintiffs 20 demonstrate good and just cause for the extension. Plaintiffs respectfully request an extension of 21 the current deadline for amending pleadings/adding parties to October 27, 2020. 22 ii. Deadline for merits experts’ disclosures: October 15, 2020 23 Plaintiffs anticipate retaining an expert to provide forensic psychological services. 24 Plaintiffs are diligently searching for available experts and attempting to address the logistical 25 challenges posed by the ongoing pandemic, including securing video conferencing/telemedicine 26 technology for Plaintiffs. At the moment, Plaintiffs await word from one potential expert witness 27 regarding the expert’s ability to conduct an evaluation of Plaintiffs remotely. In light of the 28 logistical challenges that have arisen because of the extraordinary circumstances that the COVID- 1 19 pandemic has presented, Plaintiffs anticipate requiring more time to schedule any psychological 2 examinations. Plaintiffs will likely be unable to provide expert disclosures by the current deadline 3 of October 15, 2020. Because Plaintiffs have exhibited diligence in their search for an expert 4 witness and because Defendants do not oppose the request, Plaintiffs demonstrate good and just 5 cause for the extension. Plaintiffs respectfully request an extension of the current deadline for
6 merits experts’ disclosures to November 30, 2020. 7 Finally, because the requested extension will place the merits experts’ disclosure deadline 8 near the discovery cut-off date, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the rebuttal experts’ disclosure 9 date, discovery cut-off date, and dispositive motions date also be extended. 10 11 D. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 12 1.Initial Disclosures June 16, 2020 13 2.Discovery Cut-off date January 25, 2021 14 3.Amending pleadings / adding parties October 27, 2020 15 4.Merits experts’ disclosures due November 30, 2020 16 5.Rebuttal experts’ disclosures due December 30, 2020 17 6.Dispositive Motions due February 24, 2021 18 19 20 Dated: September 15, 2020 21 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE BRYAN SCOTT 22 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND City Attorney 23 By: /s/ Adrian Hernandez_ By: /s/ Seth T. Floyd 24 Belinda Escobosa Helzer Deputy City Attorney Adrian Hernandez Nevada Bar No. 11959 25 Ernest Herrera Philip R. Byrnes MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE Senior Litigation Counsel 26 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND Nevada Bar No. 166 634 S. Spring St., 11th floor 495 South Main Street, Sixth Floor 27 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 28 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 Attorneys for Defendants 1 F. Travis Buchanan, Esq. NV Bar No. 9371 2 The Cochran Firm – Las Vegas 701 E.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Garay v. City of Las Vegas (Garay v. City of Las Vegas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.