Hollingsworth v. City of North Las Vegas

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 26, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02230
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 PIETER M. O’LEARY, Nevada Bar No. 15297 2 ||LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 MCLETCHIE LAW 3 | |602 South Tenth Street 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 5 | |Fax: (702) 425-8220 ‘ Email: maggie@nvlitigation.com 7 LEAH WIEDERHORN (pro hac vice) BRITTANY SHRADER (pro hac vice) 8 | |NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 820 | Silver Spring, MD 20910-3819 19 | |Email: leah.wiederhorn@nad.org; brittany.shrader@nad.org Counsel for Plaintiffs Andrea Hollingsworth, A.R.H., and A.D.H. 1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT V2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 ANDREA HOLLINGSWORTH, an 4. 2 14] individual; A.R.H., a minor by and through Case No.: 2:2 T-cv-02230-CDS-NIK 15 her legal guardian and/or parent, Andrea Hollingsworth; and A.D.H., a minor by and 3 3 2 16 | | through her legal guardian and/or parent, cue? Andrea Hollingsworth, ORDER TO = 17 EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND Plaintiffs SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES 18 (FOURTH REQUEST) 19 vs. 20 | | CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nevada, a 1 Municipal Corporation; JACQUELINE GRAVATT, in her official capacity as Chief 22 | | of the North Las Vegas Police Department; MICHAEL L. ROSE, an individual; ERIC 23 | | SPANNBAUER, an individual; DOES I- X, 24 Defendants. 2911) 26177 7) 28

] Plaintiffs Andrea Hollingsworth, A.R.H., and A.D.H. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through 2 | |their attorneys of record, Margaret A. McLetchie, Pieter M. O’Leary, and Leo S. Wolpert, 3 | |with the law firm of McLetchie Law, Leah Wiederhorn, and Brittany Shrader of the National 4 | |Association of the Deaf, and Defendants, the City of North Las Vegas, Jacqueline Gravatt, 5 | |Michael L. Rose, and Eric Spannbauer (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their 6 | |attorneys of record, Robert W. Freeman , Frank A. Toddre, Matthew E. Freeman, with the 7| \law firm of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP (collectively “the Parties”), hereby 8 | {stipulate and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines an 9 | |additional sixty (60) days. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes 10 | jof delay. This is the fourth request for an extension in this matter. 11] |I. STATUS OF DISCOVERY. 12 A. PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY 13 1. Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures and Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. 14 | |R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated December 2, 2022; i 15 2. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — Set One, 16 | |dated March 2, 2023; 17 3. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 18 | |Set One, dated March 2, 2023; 19 4. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant City □□ 20 | |North Las Vegas - Set One, dated March 2, 2023; 21 5. Plaintiffs’ First Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 22 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated March 2, 2023; 23 6. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for 24 | |Admission - Set One, dated March 22, 2023. 25 7. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories 26 | |- Set One, dated March 22, 2023. 27 8. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Responses to Defendants’ Request for 28 | |Production of Documents - Set One, dated March 22, 2023;

1 9. Plaintiffs’ Second Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 2 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated April 24, 2023; 3 10. _— Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production to Defendant 4 | |City of North Las Vegas - Set Two, dated April 24, 2023; 5 11. ‘Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Requests for Admission to Defendant 6 | |Michael L. Rose - Set One, dated April 24, 2023; 7 12. ‘Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production to Defendant 8 | |Michael L. Rose - Set One, dated April 24, 2023; 9 13. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories to Defendant Michael L. 10 | |Rose - Set One, dated April 24, 2023; 11 14. —~ Plaintiff Andrea Hollingworth’s First Supplemental Responses to 12 | |Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents - Set One, dated April 24, 2023; 13 15. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Request for Admission to Defendant Eric : 14 | |Spannbauer - Set One, dated April 27, 2023; i 15 16. — Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Request for Production to Defendant Eric 16 | |Spannbauer - Set One, dated April 27, 2023; 17 □□□ Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories to Defendant Eric 18 | |Spannbauer - Set One, dated April 27, 2023; 19 18. Plaintiffs’ Third Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 20 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated May 10, 2023; 21 19. Plaintiff A.D.H.’s Interrogatories to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 22 | |Set One, dated May 18, 2023; 23 20. Plaintiff A.D.H.’s Requests for Admission to Defendant City of North Las 24 | | Vegas — Set One, dated June 27, 2023; 25 21. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 26 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated June 27, 2023. 27 B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY 28 1. Defendants’ Initial List of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to Fed. R.

1 Civ. P. 26.1 dated December 2, 2022; 2 2. Defendants’ First Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 3 | |to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated February 3, 2023; 4 3. Defendants’ Interrogatories to Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth (Set One), 5 dated February 3, 2023; 6 4. Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs (Set One), 7 | |\dated February 3, 2023; 8 5. Defendants’ Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs (Set One), dated February ? | 13, 2023; 10 6. Defendants’ Second Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents 11 | |pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated March 20, 2023; 12 7. Defendants’ Third Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents ¢ 13) [Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated April 20, 2023; a: 14 8. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Responses to Plaintiff Andrea é 15 Hollingsworth Request for Admission (Set One), dated April 20, 2023; 16 9. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Response to Plaintiff Andrea = 17 Hollingsworth Request for Production of Documents (Set One), dated April 20, 2023; 18 10. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’s Answers to Plaintiff Andrea 19 Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories (Set One), dated April 20, 2023; 20 11. Defendant Officer Michael L. Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 21 Hollingsworth’s Requests for Admission — Set One, dated May 24, 2023; 22 12. Defendant Officer Michael L. Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 23 Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production — Set One, dated May 24, 2023; 24 13. Defendant Officer Michael L. Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 25 Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories — Set One, dated May 24, 2023; 26 14. Defendant Officer Eric Spannbauer’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 27 Hollingsworth’s Requests for Admission — Set One, dated May 25, 2023; 28 15. Defendant Officer Eric Spannbauer’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea

1 | |Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production — Set One, dated May 25, 2023; 2 16. Defendant Officer Eric Spannbauer’s Answers to Plaintiff Andrea 3 | |Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories — Set One, dated May 25, 2023; 4 17. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 5 | |Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production — Set Two, dated June 7, 2023; 6 18. 17. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’s Supplemental Responses to 7 | |Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production — Set One, dated August 1, 2023 8 19. Defendants’ Fourth Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents 9 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated June 7, 2023; 10 20. Defendant’s Fifth Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 11 | |to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated July 19, 2023; 12 21. | Defendant’s Sixth Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 13 | |to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated July 27, 2023; 14 22. Defendant’s Seventh Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents 15 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated August 8, 2023; 16 23. Defendant’s Eighth Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents 17 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated August 11, 2023; 18 24. Defendant’s Ninth Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents 19 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated August 24, 2023. 20 | DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. 21 The Parties are actively conducting discovery. The Parties are meeting and 22 | |conferring regarding discovery responses and also are supplementing discovery responses. 23 Plaintiffs need additional time to review the documents produced by Defendants, 24 | |including in the multiple additional supplements to initial disclosures by Defendants. These 25 | |supplements include further body worn camera (BWC) footage and copies of prior BWC 26 | |footage that require careful review and/or transcription, and review by experts. 27 Plaintiffs have also reached out to Defendants regarding possible dates for 28 | |depositions, which they intend to schedule for late October and early November.

] The Parties’ primary remaining discovery tasks include: (1) addressing any |remaining meet and confer issues and finishing written discovery; ((2) scheduling of 3 | |depositions; and (3) expert discovery. Further, the Parties intend to save resources by having 4 | |any expert disclosures follow the completion of fact discovery, to avoid the time and expense 5 | related to supplementing reports. 6 | |TI. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. 7 This is the fourth request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. The 8 | |Parties request that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended an 9 | |additional sixty (60) days so that the Parties may complete the tasks above. 10 The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend 11 | Ja deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than twenty- 12 | Jone (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 13 | |twenty-one (21) days must be supported by a showing of good cause. Here, almost all of the 14 | |deadlines the Parties seek to extend are outside of the twenty-one (21) day window, the 15 | |deadline for initial exert disclosures, however, is within the twenty-one (21) day window. 16 | | Thus, the Parties must establish that good cause exists to extend these deadlines. Pursuant to 17 | |Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension requested. 18 The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and engaged in extensive 19 | |meet and confer efforts (reflected in the multiple updates to written discovery) that they hope 20 | |will avoid the need for motion practice, but an extension is needed to efficiently continue to 21 | |conduct discovery, analyze the information provided, and manage the case. The Parties are 22 | |resolving issues and meeting and conferring regarding related issues. 23 Additionally, Plaintiffs are working to schedule depositions. However, they wish 24 | |to ensure that they obtain all needed written discovery from Defendants before doing so, 25 Plaintiffs need additional time to address these outstanding issues, propound any 26 | |additional discovery, and take depositions. Further, as noted above, an extension would 27 | |provide ample time for their expert to review the produced documents and prepare expert 28

1 | |disclosures. The Parties contend that it is more efficient to allow further discovery to be 2 | |completed before initial expert disclosures to minimize the need for supplementation. 3 Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further the resolution 4 | |of this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. 5 There is thus good cause for the extension. “Good cause to extend a discovery 6 | |deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 7 | |extension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8 | |108235, 2013 WL 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth 9 | |Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)): see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing 10 | |that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the 11 | |court and the Parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action 12 | Jand proceeding”). The Parties have been diligent in litigating this matter. Thus, the standard ¢ 13] |to extend all deadlines is satisfied here. 14 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties thus □ . . 15 | |respectfully request an extension of time to extend the discovery in this matter to enable to SE . . . . . . 3 16 | |them to conduct necessary discovery in this matter and so that this matter is fairly resolved = 17| Jon the merits. 18 | |IV. SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL _ REMAINING 19 | |DEADLINES 20 Proposed New Deadline Amend Pleadings and February 7, 2022 unchanged 22 Add Parties 23 Initial Expert October 5, 2023 December 4, 2023 Disclosures Rebuttal Expert November 7, 2023 January 6, 2024! 25 Disclosures Discovery Cut-Off December 5, 2023 February 3, 2024? 27 28 1 Sixty (60) days from November 7, 2023, is Saturday, January 6, 2024. 2 Sixty (60) days from December 5, 2023, is Saturday, February 3, 2024

Januny 3,208 March 3, 2028 Joint Pretrial Order February 5, 2024 April 5, 2024 2 (If dispositive motions are filed, 3 the deadline for shall be suspended until thirty (30) days 4 after the decision of the 5 dispositive motions or further order of the Court.) 6 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request 7 that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended an additional sixty (60) 8 days so that the parties may conduct necessary discovery. ii 10 ul ORDER /// 12 The Court reminds the parties that they must conduct discovery diligently. Given B the lengthy discovery period, the Court is not inclined to grant further extensions.

= /// IT IS SO ORDERED. a6 Dated: September 26, 2023

ly >= ee 6 BUX BE 2017 0 (NA HM Nancy J. Koppe \. ‘ 18 United States-Mz oistrate Judge i 20 ty 22 231i 24 23) Vi 26 Ny 28 — 3 Sixty (60) days from January 3, 2024, is Sunday, March 3, 2024

1 DATED this 25th day of September, 2023. DATED this 25th day of September, 2023. 3 | |MCLETCHIE LAW LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & 4 SMITH LLP 5 By: /s/ Margaret A. McLetchie MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, By: /s/ Frank A. Toddre, IT 6 Nevada Bar No. 10931 ROBERT W. FREEMAN PIETER M. O’LEARY, Nevada Bar No. 3062 7 Nevada Bar No. 15297 Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com g LEO S. WOLPERT, FRANK A. TODDRE, II Nevada Bar No. 12658 Frank.Toddre@lewisbrisbois.com 9 MCLETCHIE LAW MATTHEW E. FREEMAN 602 South Tenth Street Nevada Bar No 14198 10 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Matt.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com 11 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600 Fax: (702) 425-8220 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 12 Email: maggie@nvlitigation.com Telephone: (702) 893-3383 Fax: (702) 893-3789 = 13 LEAH WIEDERHORN (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Defendants 14 BRITTANY SHRADER (pro hac vice) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE é ese 15 DEAF 16 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 820 Silver Spring, MD 20910-3819 = 417 Email: leah.wiederhorn@nad.org; brittany.shrader@nad.org; 18 19 Counsel for Plaintiffs Andrea Hollingsworth, A.R.H., and A.D.H. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28