1 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 || MAYRA GARAY (Bar No. 15550) Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 || 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 || (702) 486-3788 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 || Email: mgaray@ag.nv.gov 7 || Attorneys for Defendants Bryan Capristo, Joseph Gutierrez, Sherry MeCracklin, 8 || Erwin Nunez, David Rodriguez, Nathan Stuart, Bryant Vaughn and 9 1] Rayvel Williams 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 SANKONA GRAHAM, Case No. 2:24-cv-00790-ART-DJA 13 Plaintiff, 14 Vv. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 15 EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES STATE OF NEVADA, et al., (FIRST REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Defendants, Bryan Capristo, Joseph Gutierrez, Sherry McCracklin, Erwin Nunez, 19 |} David Rodriguez, Nathan Stuart, Bryant Vaughn, and Rayvel Williams, by and through 99 ||counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Mayra Garay, Deputy Attorney 91 || General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby respectfully submit 99 || the following Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines outlined in ECF No. 119. 23 1. BACKGROUND 24 This action is brought by pro se Plaintiff Sankona Graham (Graham) asserting 25 || claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 26. In his Complaint, Graham sues for events 26 ||that allegedly took place while he was incarcerated within the Nevada Department of 27 || Corrections (NDOC) at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). See generally id. Graham has 28 || been allowed to proceed with the following claims against numerous Defendants: (1) First
1 || Amendment Retaliation (2) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to violence by other 2 \linmates; and (3) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for 3 seizure mediation (Keppra). ECF No. 25 at 35. 4 Following the issuance of the initial scheduling order, the parties engaged in 5 discovery. See ECF No. 119. Defendants sent their initial disclosures and responded to 6 || Graham’s first set of requests for production. Thereafter, Defendants supplemented their 7 |linitial disclosures. No other discovery has been conducted. 8 On January 2, 2025, Defense Counsel held a telephonic conference with Graham to 9 || discuss settlement options. The parties made efforts to settle the matter and an agreement 10 || suitable to all had been reached but due to recent disciplinary issues, this offer has since been withdrawn. On February 7, 2025, Defense Counsel held another telephonic conference 12 || with Graham who requested an extension to conduct additional discovery. During this call, 13 || Graham indicated that he would like to request an additional 60 days for discovery because 14 |lof the lockdown that occurred in January of this year at High Desert State Prison, which 15 |lrestricted his access to the law library. Assuming the Court is inclined to grant □□□□□□□□ 16 |lrequest, Defendants do not oppose an extension if the discovery permitted is limited to a 17 maximum of 11 requests for production (as Graham has already served and received 18 || answers to 14 out of the 25 requests for production permitted) to Defendants in total (not 19 || per defendant), 25 interrogatories in total (not per defendant), 25 requests for admission in 20 || total (not per defendant). To assist the court in good faith and avoid any further delays 91 || which would be caused if Graham had to move the court for an extension, Defense Counsel 22 |lhas agreed to draft and file this stipulation requesting an extension of 60 days. 23 LEGAL STANDAND 24 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 25 it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860 26 || (8th Cir. 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court... must be in writing 97 signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a). No stipulation 28
1 |lrelating to proceedings before the court ... are effective until approved by the court. 2 || LR 7-1b). 3 A request to reopen discovery must be supported by a showing of good cause and 4 excusable neglect. Local Rule 26-3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The good cause analysis turns 5 whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 6 || Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Local Rule 26-3 7 ||provides that “[a] request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be 8 ligranted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of 9 Ilexcusable neglect.” When determining excusable neglect, courts may consider (1) the 10 danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential 11 |/impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay and, (4) whether the movant 12 || acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs, Lid. P’ship., 507 U.S, 380, 13 (1993). LR 26-3 further provides that when the parties seek to re-open discovery, a 14 || stipulation must include: (a) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific 15 || description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline 16 || was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set 17 || by the discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 18 ||IH. GOOD CAUSE AND EXCUSABLE NEGLECT 19 Graham claims that this lockdown and the holiday season impeded him from being 20 || able to complete his discovery requests and preparation for summary judgment. Since July 21 |{of 2024, HDSP, where Graham is currently housed, has been undergoing many changes in 22 security protocols and these necessary changes have unfortunately caused a temporary 23 || delay and/or limited access to certain services, including law library services. Upon inquiry, 24 ||/counsel for Defendants has confirmed that there was a new lockdown imposed at HDSP in 25 January of this year. While HDSP has made significant efforts to return to its normal 26 ||operations, events such as lockdowns would cause delays and/or limited access to certain 27 services to prevent security issues. An extension of the discovery deadlines will permit 28 || Graham to finish conducting discovery (11 requests for production, 25 interrogatories, and
1 1125 requests for admission in total, not per party) and to prepare his opposition to 2 || Defendants’ upcoming motion for summary judgment. Thus, despite the parties’ diligence, 3 current discovery deadlines could not have reasonably been met. 4 The parties further contend that excusable neglect exists because there is no 5 || prejudice to any of the parties, the length of the delay is necessary to ensure that the parties 6 a fair opportunity to prepare their case and defenses, and the parties are stipulating 7 ||in good faith. First, the parties agree that discovery should be reopened and that no party 8 || will be prejudiced by such an extension if the court agrees to limit Graham’s discovery to 9 requests for production, 25 interrogatories, and 25 requests for admission in total, not 10 || per party. Second, the parties respectfully request an additional 60 days of discovery to 11 |/have sufficient time to complete factual discovery and address any potential discovery 12 || disputes. . 13 LOCAL RULE 26-3 REQUIREMENTS 14 a.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 || MAYRA GARAY (Bar No. 15550) Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 || 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 || (702) 486-3788 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 || Email: mgaray@ag.nv.gov 7 || Attorneys for Defendants Bryan Capristo, Joseph Gutierrez, Sherry MeCracklin, 8 || Erwin Nunez, David Rodriguez, Nathan Stuart, Bryant Vaughn and 9 1] Rayvel Williams 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 SANKONA GRAHAM, Case No. 2:24-cv-00790-ART-DJA 13 Plaintiff, 14 Vv. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 15 EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES STATE OF NEVADA, et al., (FIRST REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Defendants, Bryan Capristo, Joseph Gutierrez, Sherry McCracklin, Erwin Nunez, 19 |} David Rodriguez, Nathan Stuart, Bryant Vaughn, and Rayvel Williams, by and through 99 ||counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Mayra Garay, Deputy Attorney 91 || General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby respectfully submit 99 || the following Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines outlined in ECF No. 119. 23 1. BACKGROUND 24 This action is brought by pro se Plaintiff Sankona Graham (Graham) asserting 25 || claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 26. In his Complaint, Graham sues for events 26 ||that allegedly took place while he was incarcerated within the Nevada Department of 27 || Corrections (NDOC) at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). See generally id. Graham has 28 || been allowed to proceed with the following claims against numerous Defendants: (1) First
1 || Amendment Retaliation (2) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to violence by other 2 \linmates; and (3) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for 3 seizure mediation (Keppra). ECF No. 25 at 35. 4 Following the issuance of the initial scheduling order, the parties engaged in 5 discovery. See ECF No. 119. Defendants sent their initial disclosures and responded to 6 || Graham’s first set of requests for production. Thereafter, Defendants supplemented their 7 |linitial disclosures. No other discovery has been conducted. 8 On January 2, 2025, Defense Counsel held a telephonic conference with Graham to 9 || discuss settlement options. The parties made efforts to settle the matter and an agreement 10 || suitable to all had been reached but due to recent disciplinary issues, this offer has since been withdrawn. On February 7, 2025, Defense Counsel held another telephonic conference 12 || with Graham who requested an extension to conduct additional discovery. During this call, 13 || Graham indicated that he would like to request an additional 60 days for discovery because 14 |lof the lockdown that occurred in January of this year at High Desert State Prison, which 15 |lrestricted his access to the law library. Assuming the Court is inclined to grant □□□□□□□□ 16 |lrequest, Defendants do not oppose an extension if the discovery permitted is limited to a 17 maximum of 11 requests for production (as Graham has already served and received 18 || answers to 14 out of the 25 requests for production permitted) to Defendants in total (not 19 || per defendant), 25 interrogatories in total (not per defendant), 25 requests for admission in 20 || total (not per defendant). To assist the court in good faith and avoid any further delays 91 || which would be caused if Graham had to move the court for an extension, Defense Counsel 22 |lhas agreed to draft and file this stipulation requesting an extension of 60 days. 23 LEGAL STANDAND 24 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 25 it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860 26 || (8th Cir. 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court... must be in writing 97 signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a). No stipulation 28
1 |lrelating to proceedings before the court ... are effective until approved by the court. 2 || LR 7-1b). 3 A request to reopen discovery must be supported by a showing of good cause and 4 excusable neglect. Local Rule 26-3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The good cause analysis turns 5 whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 6 || Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Local Rule 26-3 7 ||provides that “[a] request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be 8 ligranted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of 9 Ilexcusable neglect.” When determining excusable neglect, courts may consider (1) the 10 danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential 11 |/impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay and, (4) whether the movant 12 || acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs, Lid. P’ship., 507 U.S, 380, 13 (1993). LR 26-3 further provides that when the parties seek to re-open discovery, a 14 || stipulation must include: (a) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific 15 || description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline 16 || was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set 17 || by the discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 18 ||IH. GOOD CAUSE AND EXCUSABLE NEGLECT 19 Graham claims that this lockdown and the holiday season impeded him from being 20 || able to complete his discovery requests and preparation for summary judgment. Since July 21 |{of 2024, HDSP, where Graham is currently housed, has been undergoing many changes in 22 security protocols and these necessary changes have unfortunately caused a temporary 23 || delay and/or limited access to certain services, including law library services. Upon inquiry, 24 ||/counsel for Defendants has confirmed that there was a new lockdown imposed at HDSP in 25 January of this year. While HDSP has made significant efforts to return to its normal 26 ||operations, events such as lockdowns would cause delays and/or limited access to certain 27 services to prevent security issues. An extension of the discovery deadlines will permit 28 || Graham to finish conducting discovery (11 requests for production, 25 interrogatories, and
1 1125 requests for admission in total, not per party) and to prepare his opposition to 2 || Defendants’ upcoming motion for summary judgment. Thus, despite the parties’ diligence, 3 current discovery deadlines could not have reasonably been met. 4 The parties further contend that excusable neglect exists because there is no 5 || prejudice to any of the parties, the length of the delay is necessary to ensure that the parties 6 a fair opportunity to prepare their case and defenses, and the parties are stipulating 7 ||in good faith. First, the parties agree that discovery should be reopened and that no party 8 || will be prejudiced by such an extension if the court agrees to limit Graham’s discovery to 9 requests for production, 25 interrogatories, and 25 requests for admission in total, not 10 || per party. Second, the parties respectfully request an additional 60 days of discovery to 11 |/have sufficient time to complete factual discovery and address any potential discovery 12 || disputes. . 13 LOCAL RULE 26-3 REQUIREMENTS 14 a. Discovery Completed 15 Defendants served initial disclosures of NDOC Defendants pursuant to FRCP 26. 16 |}Graham served Defendants with 14 requests for production Defendants responded to these 17 || requests. 18 b. Discovery that Remains to be Completed 19 1. Graham’s initial disclosures 20 2. Written Discovery by Graham 21 a. Requests For Admission — 25 total (not per defendant) 22 b. Requests For Production — 11 total (not per defendant) 23 c. Interrogatories — 25 total (not per defendant) 24 c. Reasons the Remaining Discovery Was Not Completed 25 As explained before, it is Hkely that Graham did not issue discovery requests because 26 ||the parties were very close to settling this matter but due to recent disciplinary charges, 27 offer that had been proposed by Defendants has since been withdrawn. Graham 28 |} informed Defense Counsel during the meet and confer on February 7, 2025, that the holiday
1 season and lockdown at HDSP in January of this year prevented him from being able to 2 ||complete discovery and prepare his upcoming discovery motions and opposition to 3 || Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The parties have worked together in good faith 4 ||to conduct discovery, but Graham needs more time to finish conducting discovery. Notably, 5 Graham asserts that the latest lockdowns have prevented him from being able to do legal 6 || research in preparation for his discovery motions and opposition to Defendants’ motion for 7 ||summary judgment. Defendants, in good faith and an abundance of caution to ensure the 8 || fairness of this litigation, do not oppose Graham’s request if limited as stated above. The 9 || parties have discussed and outlined the discovery that the parties believe will be necessary 10 || to complete discovery and now propose these new discovery deadlines to the court. 11 d. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery 12 The parties jointly propose the following discovery plan, which allows approximately 13 days to complete discovery: 14
i 19 i 20 21 |i 22 | 23 |I /// 24 | iif 25 26 97 ' Because 60 days from February 5, 2025 is Sunday, April 6, 2025, the next business day, Monday, April 7, 2025 is proposed instead. 298 2 Because 60 days from February 19, 2025 is Sunday, April 20, 2025, the next business day, Monday, April 21, 2025 is proposed instead.
1 In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order 2 be suspended until thirty days after the decision on the dispositive motions or by 3 || further order of the court. 4 5 DATED this AOth day of February, 2025. DATED this __ th day of February, 2025. 6 AARON D. FORD 7 Attorney General 8 ! By: By: /s/ Mayra Garay 9 || SANKGNA GRAHAM MAYRA GARAY 10 || Pro se Plaintiff Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants
12 13 14 15 || ITIS SO ORDERED subject to the following modification. The parties’ stipulation fails to include a deadline for filing the joint pretrial order. Accordingly, the deadline to file the 16 || Joint Pretrial Order is June 5, 2025. If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing 17 the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order. 18 DATED this 24th day of February 2025. 19 np 21 > A DANIEL J. ALBRESTS 22 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that [am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 3 || and that on Febroety 7. 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing 4 ||via this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties who are registered with this Court’s 5 electronic filing system will be served electronically. 6 Sankona Graham, #1271113 High Desert State Prison 7 P.O. Box 650 Indian Springs, Nevada 89070 8 Plaintiff, Pro Se 9 10 /sf Andrea Beckett. ANDREA BECKETT, an employee of the Office of the Nevada Attorney General 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 26 27 28