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, (SECOND 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 respectfully request a sixty
6 (60) day extension of the current scheduling order deadlines. In support of this Stipulation and 7 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. On September 24, 2020, Plaintiffs clarified 17 their First Set of Interrogatories. On October 1, 2020, Defendants served their responses to 18 Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Admission. On October 15, 2020, Defendants served their 19 responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. On October 20, 2020, 20 Defendants served their responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. 21 22 B. DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 23 The parties in this case continue to propound and respond to written discovery and must 24 conduct depositions, in addition to making their expert disclosures. 25 26 C. REASON FOR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES 27 Plaintiffs intend to seek leave of Court to amend the First Amended Complaint to allege the 28 true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants, and the roles they played, once their identities 1 and/or manner of participation is ascertained. An extension of the discovery deadlines requires 2 good and just cause. See LR 26-3; see also Chambers Practices of The Honorable Gloria M. 3 Navarro, United States District Judge at 1. A party may show good cause to modify a discovery 4 schedule date “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 5 extension.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
6 Prejudice to “the part y opposing the modification” may also be relevant. See id. 7 Plaintiffs continue diligently to try to ascertain the names and capacities of the DOE 8 Defendants through written discovery. Plaintiffs granted Defendants a one week extension to 9 respond to their First Set of Interrogatories. Defendants served their responses on September 10, 10 2020. Defendants raised numerous objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. The parties 11 met and conferred on September 14, 2020, and agreed that Plaintiffs would clarify their First Set 12 of Interrogatories to allow Defendants to provide full responses. On September 24, 2020, Plaintiffs 13 clarified their First Set of Interrogatories and requested Defendants’ responses by October 7, 2020. 14 On September 30, 2020, Defendants indicated that they anticipated further objections to Plaintiffs’ 15 First Set of Interrogatories and would not be able to provide complete responses by October 7, 16 2020. The parties met and conferred on October 6, 2020 and agreed that Defendants would provide 17 full responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories by October 19, 2020. On October 20, 2020, 18 Defendants served their responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and raised several 19 objections. The parties will meet and confer to resolve the ongoing discovery dispute. 20 Plaintiffs cannot move for leave to file an amended complaint that alleges a plausible claim 21 for relief against each defendant unless it substitutes the true names and capacities of “those who 22 personally participated in the deprivation of his right” for the DOE Defendants currently named. 23 See Cepero v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, No. 211CV01421JADGWF, 2018 WL 5043775, at 24 *7 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 211CV01421JADGWF, 2018 25 WL 5726176 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2018) (citing Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002)). 26 Despite Plaintiffs’ diligence in this regard, as demonstrated by discovery requests and the parties’ 27 efforts to confer on the discovery that seeks to identify the relevant officers, Plaintiffs have been 28 1 unable to ascertain the true names and capacities of the officers. Plaintiffs will therefore be unable 2 to move for leave to file an amended complaint by the current deadline of October 27, 2020. 3 Further, based on the number of witnesses identified in Defendants’ initial disclosures and 4 discovery responses, the parties have discussed the possibility of seeking leave of court under Fed. 5 R. Civ. P 30(a)(2)(A)(i) to take more than ten (10) depositions. The parties respectfully request an
6 extension of the disc overy cut-off date, in the event that the parties stipulate to taking more than 7 ten depositions at a later time. 8 Because of Plaintiffs’ diligence and because Defendants do not oppose the request, the 9 parties demonstrate good and just cause for the extension. The parties respectfully request a sixty 10 (60) day extension of the current scheduling order deadlines in accordance with the proposed 11 scheduling order below. 12 13 D. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 14 1.Initial Disclosures June 16, 2020 15 2.Discovery Cut-off date March 26, 2021 16 3.Amending pleadings / adding parties December 28, 2020 17 4.Merits experts’ disclosures due January 29, 2021 18 5.Rebuttal experts’ disclosures due March 1, 2021 19 6.Dispositive Motions due April 26, 2021 20 21 22 Dated: October 27, 2020 23 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE BRYAN SCOTT 24 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND City Attorney 25 By: /s/ Adrian Hernandez_ By: /s/_Seth T. Floyd_ 26 Belinda Escobosa Helzer Deputy City Attorney Adrian Hernandez Nevada Bar No. 11959 27 Ernest Herrera Philip R. Byrnes MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE Senior Litigation Counsel 28 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND Nevada Bar No. 166 1 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 2 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 Attorneys for Defendants 3 F.Travis Buchanan, Esq. NV Bar No.
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.