Hollingsworth v. City of North Las Vegas

Opinion

1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 2) |MCLETCHIE LAW 602 South Tenth Street 3 | |Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 4 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 Fax: (702) 425-8220 5 | |Email: maggie@nvlitigation.com |BRITTANY SHRADER (pro hac vice) 7| |NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 820 8 | {Silver Spring, MD 20910-3819 Email: brittany.shrader@nad.org 9 | | Counsel for Plaintiffs Andrea Hollingsworth, A.R.H., and A.D.H. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1] DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 ANDREA HOLLINGSWORTH, an 4. individual; A.R.H., a minor by and through Case No.: 2:21-cv-02230-CDS-NJK 13 y g . her legal guardian and/or parent, Andrea ag 14 | | Hollingsworth; and A.D.H., a minor by and 15 through her legal guardian and/or parent, Andrea Hollingsworth, RENEWED STIPULATION AND 16 ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY Plaintiffs, PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER = 47 DEADLINES vs NINTH REQUEST 18 19 | |CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nevada, a Municipal Corporation; JACQUELINE 20 | □ GRAVATT, in her official capacity as Chief 1 of the North Las Vegas Police Department; MICHAEL L. ROSE, an individual; ERIC 22 | | SPANNBAUER, an individual; DOES I —- X, 23 Defendants. 24 Plaintiffs Andrea Hollingsworth, A.R.H., and A.D.H. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through 25 | |their attorneys of record, Margaret A. McLetchie and Leo S. Wolpert, with the law firm of 26||McLetchie Law, and Brittany Shrader of the National Association of the Deaf, and 27 | |Defendants, the City of North Las Vegas, Jacqueline Gravatt, Michael L. Rose, and Eric 28 | |Spannbauer (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record, Robert W.

1 | |Freeman and Matthew E. Freeman, with the law firm of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 2 | |LLP (collectively “the Parties”), hereby stipulate and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and 3 | |Scheduling Order deadlines an additional ninety (90) days. This Stipulation is being entered 4 | |in good faith and not for purposes of delay. This is the ninth request for an extension of the 5 | |discovery scheduling order in this matter. 6 While the parties are mindful of the Court’s admonitions” regarding the lengthy 7 | |discovery in this matter, one final extension is necessary to schedule depositions and perform 8 | jexpert discovery. Since the Court entered its order mandating expedited discovery (ECF No. 9 | |50) the parties have endeavored to engage in settlement negotiations and complete discovery. 10 | |As noted below, that order spurred voluminous written discovery and depositions. It also 11 | |spurred motion practice, specifically two motions to compel? filed by Plaintiffs and one 12 | |motion for a protective order* regarding the 30(b)(6) deposition notice filed by Defendants. 13 As noted in the parties’ requests for stays and more fully explained below, counsel g 14 | |for all parties have suffered personal setbacks and challenges in 2024—in addition to their 15 | Jnormal caseloads which were further squeezed by those events—that have impacted their 23 16 | jability to complete discovery or reach a settlement in this matter. Thus, notwithstanding the © |Court’s understandable frustration with the pace of discovery in this matter, the Parties 18 | |submit that good cause exists to extend these deadlines one final time. 19] STATUS OF DISCOVERY. 20 A. PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY 21 1. Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures and Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. 22 |! Pursuant to this Court’s order (ECF No. 120), counsel for the Parties are submitting a renewed Stipulation to Extend and have agreed that a 90-day extension is appropriate, as Mr. Freeman is required to leave the jurisdiction for an indeterminate period of time starting the 25 | |week of December 9, 2024. ? (See generally ECF No. 50 (granting 45-day extension of discovery deadlines subject to 26 | several expediting conditions); ECF No. 115, p. 1:24-26.) 7 3 (ECF No. 54 [1‘ motion]; ECF No. 61 [opposition to 1% motion]; ECF No. 75 [reply in support of 1‘ motion]; ECF No. 81 [2°4 motion]; ECF No. 88 [opposition to 2™ motion]; 28 | |ECF No. 96 [reply in support of 24 motion].) 4 (ECF No. 76 [motion]; ECF No. 86 [motion]; ECF No. 102 [opposition].)

1 | |R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated December 2, 2022; 2 2. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — Set One, 3 | |dated March 2, 2023; 4 3. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 5 | |Set One, dated March 2, 2023; 6 4. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant City of 7 | |North Las Vegas - Set One, dated March 2, 2023; 8 5. Plaintiffs’ First Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 9 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated March 2, 2023; 10 6. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for 11 | |Admission - Set One, dated March 22, 2023. 12 7. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories 13 | |- Set One, dated March 22, 2023. 14 8. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Responses to Defendants’ Request for 15 | |Production of Documents - Set One, dated March 22, 2023; 16 9. Plaintiffs’ Second Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 17 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated April 24, 2023; 18 10. — Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production to Defendant 19 | |City of North Las Vegas - Set Two, dated April 24, 2023; 20 11. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Requests for Admission to Defendant 21 | |Michael L. Rose - Set One, dated April 24, 2023; 22 12. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production to Defendant 23 | |Michael L. Rose - Set One, dated April 24, 2023; 24 13. ‘Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories to Defendant Michael L. 25 | |Rose - Set One, dated April 24, 2023; 26 14.‘ Plaintiff Andrea MHollingworth’s First Supplemental Responses to 27 | |Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents - Set One, dated April 24, 2023; 28 15. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Request for Admission to Defendant Eric

1 | |Spannbauer - Set One, dated April 27, 2023; 2 16. — Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Request for Production to Defendant Eric 3 | |Spannbauer - Set One, dated April 27, 2023; 4 17. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories to Defendant Eric 5 | |Spannbauer - Set One, dated April 27, 2023; 6 18. Plaintiffs’ Third Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 7 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated May 10, 2023; 8 19. □□□ Plaintiff A.D.H.’s Interrogatories to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 9 | |Set One, dated May 18, 2023; 10 20. Plaintiff A.D.H.’s Requests for Admission to Defendant City of North Las 11 | Vegas — Set One, dated June 27, 2023; 12 21. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 13 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated June 27, 2023. 14 22. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 15 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated December 4, 2023. 16 23. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 17 | |Set Two, dated December 12, 2023. 18 24. Plaintiffs Interrogatories to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — Set Two, 19 | |dated December 12, 2023. 20 25. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 21 | |Set Three, dated December 12, 2023. 22 26. Plaintiff A.D.H.’s Interrogatories to Defendant Michael Rose — Set One, 23 | |dated December 14, 2024. 24 27. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production to Defendant Eric Spannbauer — Set 25 | |Two, dated December 14, 2023. 26 28. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production to Defendant Michael Rose — Set Two, 27 | |\dated December 14, 2023. 28 29. Plaintiffs Interrogatories to Defendant Eric Spannbauer — Set One, dated

1 | |December 14, 2024. 2 30. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Michael Rose — Set Two, dated 3 | |December 14, 2024. 4 31. Plaintiffs’ Sixth Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 5 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated December 14, 2023. 6 32. ‘Plaintiffs’ Seventh Supplement to Disclosures and Production of 7 | |Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated January 16, 2024. 8 33. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Bradley Wine, dated January 18, 2024. 9 34. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Joshua Odoms, dated January 22, 2024. 10 35. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Christopher Miller, dated January 24, 2024. 11 36. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Rochelle Hinojosa, dated January 29, 2024. 12 37. Plaintiff Andrea Hollingworth’s Second Supplemental Responses to 13 | |Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents - Set One, dated February 1, 2024. 3 14 38. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 15 | |Set Three, dated February 5, 2024. 16 39. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 17 | |Set Four, dated February 5, 2024. 18 40. Plaintiffs’ Eighth Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 19 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated February 7, 2024. 20 41. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Jessica Mangual, dated February 7, 2024. 21 42. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Eric Spannbauer (Part 1), dated February 8, 2024. 22 43. Plaintiffs’ Ninth Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 23 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated February 15, 2024. 24 44. Plaintiffs’ Tenth Supplement to Disclosures and Production of Documents 25 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated February 16, 2024. 26 45. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production to Defendant City of North Las Vegas — 27 | |Set Five, dated February 22, 2024. 28 46. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Michael Rose (Part 1), dated February 22, 2024.

] 47. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Jonathan Ramirez, dated February 29, 2024. 2 48. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Eric Spannbauer (Part 2), dated March 1, 2024. 3 49. Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents 4] |- Set Two, dated March 6, 2024. 5 50. Plaintiffs’ Deposition of Michael Rose (Part 2), dated March 27, 2024. 6 51. _— Plaintiffs’ Eleventh Supplement to Disclosures and Production of 7 | |Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated March 28, 2024. 8 52. _— Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental Responses to Defendants’ Request for 9 | |Production of Documents - Set Two, dated March 29, 2024. 10 B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY 1] 1. Defendants’ Initial List of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1 dated December 2, 2022; 13 2. Defendants’ First Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 14 | Ito Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated February 3, 2023; 15 3. Defendants’ Interrogatories to Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth (Set One), 16 dated February 3, 2023; = 17 4. Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs (Set One), 18 dated February 3, 2023; 19 5. Defendants’ Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs (Set One), dated February 20) 13, 2023; 21 6. Defendants’ Second Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents 22 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated March 20, 2023; 23 7. Defendants’ Third Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents 24 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated April 20, 2023; 25 8. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 26 Hollingsworth Request for Admission (Set One), dated April 20, 2023; 27 9. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Response to Plaintiff Andrea 28 Hollingsworth Request for Production of Documents (Set One), dated April 20, 2023;

1 10. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’s Answers to Plaintiff Andrea 2 | |Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories (Set One), dated April 20, 2023; 3 11. Defendant Officer Michael L. Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 4 | |Hollingsworth’s Requests for Admission — Set One, dated May 24, 2023; 5 12. Defendant Officer Michael L. Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 6 | |Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production — Set One, dated May 24, 2023; 7 13. Defendant Officer Michael L. Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 8 | |Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories — Set One, dated May 24, 2023; 9 14. Defendant Officer Eric Spannbauer’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 10 | |Hollingsworth’s Requests for Admission — Set One, dated May 25, 2023; 11 15. Defendant Officer Eric Spannbauer’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 12 | |Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production — Set One, dated May 25, 2023; 13 16. Defendant Officer Eric Spannbauer’s Answers to Plaintiff Andrea 3 14 | |Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories — Set One, dated May 25, 2023; 15 17. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 16 | |Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production — Set Two, dated June 7, 2023; 17 18. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff 18 | |Andrea Hollingsworth’s Requests for Production — Set One, dated August 1, 2023 19 19. Defendants’ Fourth Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents 20 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated June 7, 2023; 21 20. Defendant’s Fifth Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 22 | |to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated July 19, 2023; 23 21. Defendant’s Sixth Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 24 | |to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated July 27, 2023; 25 22. Defendant’s Seventh Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents 26 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated August 8, 2023; 27 23. Defendant’s Eighth Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents 28 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated August 11, 2023;

] 24. Defendant’s Ninth Supplement to list of Witnesses and Documents 2 | |Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated August 24, 2023. 3 25. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for 4 | |Admission - Set Two, dated January 4, 2024. 5 26. Defendant Michael Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production 6 | |- Set Two, dated January 4, 2024. 7 27. Defendant Michael Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff Andrea Hollingsworth’s 8 | |Interrogatories - Set Two, dated January 4, 2024. 9 28. | Defendant Michael Rose’s Responses to Plaintiff A.R.H.’s Interrogatories 10 | |- Set One, dated January 4, 2024. 11 29. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for 12 | |Production - Set Three, dated January 11, 2024. 13 30. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories 14 | |- Set Two, dated January 11, 2024 15 31. Defendant Eric Spannbauer’s Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for 16 | |Production - Set Two, dated January 16, 2024. 17 32. Defendant Eric Spannbauer’s Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories - Set 18 | |One, dated January 16, 2024. 19 33. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for 20 | |Admission - Set Three, dated February 20, 2024. 21 34. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for 22 | |Production - Set Four, dated February 20, 2024. 23 35. Defendant Michael Rose’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Requests 24 | |for Production - Set Two, dated February 20, 2024. 25 36. | Defendant Michael Rose’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Andrea 26 | |Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories - Set Two, dated February 20, 2024. 27 37. Defendant Michael Rose’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff A.R.H.’s 28 | |Interrogatories - Set One, dated February 20, 2024.

1 38. Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs — Set Two, 2 | |dated February 21, 2024. 3 39. Defendants’ Deposition of A.R.H., dated February 25, 2024. 4 40. Defendants’ Deposition of A.D.H., dated February 25, 2024. 5 41. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for 6 | |Production - Set Five, dated March 7, 2024. 7 42. Defendants’ Deposition of Latina Jones, dated March 8, 2024. 8 43. Defendants’ Deposition of Andrea Hollingsworth (Part One), dated March 9 | }11, 2024. 10 44. __ Defendants’ Deposition of Andrea Hollingsworth (Part Two), dated March 11 | }12, 2024. 12 45. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Supplemental Responses to 13 | |Plaintiff’s Requests for Production - Set Three, dated March 28, 2024. 14 46. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Supplemental Responses to 15 | |Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories - Set Two, dated March 28, 2024. 16 47. Defendant Michael Rose’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s 17 | |Requests for Production - Set Two, dated March 28, 2024. 18 48. Defendant Eric Spannbauer’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's 19 | |Requests for Production - Set Two, dated March 28, 2024. 20 49. Defendant Michael Rose’s Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff 21 | |Andrea Hollingsworth’s Interrogatories - Set Two, dated March 28, 2024. 22 50. Defendant Michael Rose’s Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff 23 | |A.R.H.’s Interrogatories - Set One, dated March 28, 2024. 24 51. Defendant Eric Spannbauer’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's 25 | |Interrogatories - Set One, dated March 28, 2024. 26 52. Defendant City of North Las Vegas’ Supplemental Responses to 27 | |Plaintiff’s Requests for Production - Set Five, dated April 3, 2024. 28

1} |IL. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. 2 The Parties’ primary remaining discovery tasks include: (1) taking the depositions 3 | jof CNLV’s 30(b)(6) representative and NLVPD Officer Yolanda Saip, and finishing the 4 | |deposition of Defendant Rose (the parties are working on scheduling these depositions as 5 | |soon as possible); and (2) expert discovery, including taking expert depositions.” 6 | |TI. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. 7 This is the ninth 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 ninety (90) days so that the Parties may complete the tasks above. The Parties are 10 | |aware that this case has been stayed and amended a number of times and do not request this 11 | Jextension lightly. The Parties together request this in good faith and to further the resolution 12 | |of this complicated case on the merits, possible settlement and not for any purpose of delay. 13 The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend 3 14 | Ja deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than twenty- 15 | Jone (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 16 | |twenty-one (21) days must be supported by a showing of good cause. Here, the Parties 17 | |contend that good cause exists to extend these deadlines. 18 Following the stays, the Parties are continuing to actively work together on possible 19 | |resolution, finishing discovery, and engaging in meet and confer efforts. However, an 20 | Jextension is needed to finalize discovery, which has largely been completed but the 21 | |undersigned factors have complicated the ability to schedule remaining depositions. © 22 As the Court is aware, two of the counsel at McLetchie Law (who are also married) 23 | |have had two deaths in their close family within the last six (6) months ’. While they have 2411s Further resolution of some written discovery issues may be needed, and the Parties are 25 | |working together on creative means of narrowing some of the factual issues in the case. ® Further, while the expert reports are nearly done, one of Plaintiffs’ experts was sick (and 26 | |the Parties wish to avoid supplementing, if possible). 7 T As noted in the parties’ September 4, 2024, status report and request to continue the stay in this matter (ECF No. 115), as well as the previous motions to stay (ECF Nos. 109 and 113), 28 | |Mr. Wolpert’s father was diagnosed as terminally ill with ALS in 2023 and Mr. Wolpert was required to repeatedly travel to Tucson, Arizona to assist his parents until his father’s death

1 | |been working diligently since to catch up (including on this case), much work is backed up, 2 | |understandably. Further, Mr. Wolpert has been assisting his mother and Ms. McLetchie has 3 | |been required to devote substantial time and effort to planning and attending her late mother’s 4 | |memorial services, and managing her late mother’s estate. 5 McLetchie Law has recently hired another attorney and a paralegal to alleviate 6 | |these burdens, but professional factors outside the control of the undersigned have also |contributed to unanticipated burdens and challenges. For instance, in May 2024, Pieter 8 | |O’ Leary—who was involved in litigating this matter—left McLetchie Law. Then a law clerk/ 9 | |associate worked heavily on the discovery in this matter and was expected to work 10 | |intensively on the case following her leave to study for and take the day before her start date, 11 | |suddenly announced she had taken another position. 12 Further, Leah Wiederhorn, who was actively involved in this case, left the National = 13 |Association of the Deaf (NAD)in May 2024. This, in addition to the other matters detailed 3 = g 14 | |herein, has also negatively impacted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ability to devote time to this matter. 255 15 | |While Brittany Shrader of the NAD remains on the case to provide her expertise she has had 4 16 | |unexpected significant professional and personal responsibilities. * £17 Also, as referenced in ECF No. 115, counsel for Defendants has also had family 18 | jobligations that require time out of the jurisdiction; those issues have become more serious 19 | |and are expected to require more travel time in December.” 20 21 22 | jon May 17, 2024. Since then, Mr. Wolpert has been required to repeatedly travel to Tucson to attend his father’s funeral and assist his widowed mother with handling her late husband’s 23 | |estate and affairs. Ms. McLetchie’s mother was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in 2023, 4 and underwent surgery and several other medical procedures in winter and spring of 2024; this required Ms. McLetchie to devote substantial time to caring for her mother, including 25 | |travel to Los Angeles where Ms. McLetchie’s mother’s surgery and recovery took place. Unfortunately, the cancer metastasized and Ms. McLetchie’s mother passed away on July 26 | |28, 2024. 7 8 At the pleasure of the Court, Ms. Schrader is willing to provide more information regarding these issues. 28 | |? At the pleasure of the Court, counsel for Defendants is willing to provide more information regarding his family obligations. 1]

1 There is thus good cause for the extension for these reasons. “Good cause to extend 2 | |a discovery deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 3 | |seeking the extension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. 4| |Dist. LEXIS 108235, 2013 WL 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. 5 | |Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 6 | |(providing that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and 7| {employed by the court and the Parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 8 | |determination of every action and proceeding’’). The Parties have been diligent in litigating 9 | |this matter. Thus, the standard to extend all deadlines is satisfied here. 10 Based on the foregoing, the Parties thus respectfully request an extension of time 11 | |to extend the discovery in this matter to enable to them to conduct necessary discovery in 12 | |this matter and so that this matter is fairly resolved on the merits. The Parties will not seek 13 |a further extension of discovery deadlines. 14 | |IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING

15 | [DEADLINES

16 8 17 Deadline Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline Amend Pleadings and Add February 7, 2022 unchanged 18 Parties 19 Initial Expert Disclosures November 15, 2024 February 13, 2025 20 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures | December 16, 2024 March 17, 2025!° Discovery Cut-Off January 17, 2025 April 17, 2025 Dispositive Motions February 17, 2025 May 19, 20251 Joint Pretrial Order March 17, 2025 June 16, 2025” 23 (If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for shall be 24 suspended until thirty (30) 25 days after the decision of the dispositive motions or further 26 order of the Court.) 27 10 . 90 days after December 16, 2024, is March 16, 2025, a Sunday. 1! 90 days after February 17, 2025, is May 18, 2025, a Sunday. 2 90 days after March 17, 2025, is June 15, 2025, a Sunday. 12

] Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request 2 | |that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended an additional ninety 3 | |(90) days so that the parties may conduct necessary discovery. 4 5 DATED December 6, 2024. DATED December 6, 2024. 6 | |MCLETCHIE LAW LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 7 8 By: /s/ Margaret A. McLetchie By: /s/ Robert W. Freeman MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, ROBERT W. FREEMAN 9 Nevada Bar No. 10931 Nevada Bar No. 3062 LEO S. WOLPERT, Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com Nevada Bar No. 12658 MATTHEW E. FREEMAN ll MCLETCHIE LAW Nevada Bar No 14198 602 South Tenth Street Matt.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com 12 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Fax: (702) 425-8220 Telephone: (702) 893-3383 Es 14 Email: maggie@nvlitigation.com Fax: (702) 893-3789 as Attorneys for Defendants é 15 BRITTANY SHRADER (pro hac vice) Be NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE 161) DEAF = 47 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 820 Silver Spring, MD 20910-3819 18 Email: leah.wiederhorn@nad.org; 19 brittany.shrader@nad.org; Counsel for Plaintiffs Andrea || Hollingsworth, A.R.H., and A.D.H. ORDER 21 No further extensions will be granted. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: December 9, 2024 25 en ce 26 a — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE