FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., NevadaBar No. 6974 fflansburg@bhfs.com EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 11956 eellis@bhfs.com TROY P. DOMINA, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 13862 tdomina@bhfs.com 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS v. CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR JULY 8, 2022 JAMES DZURENDA; FRANK DREESEN; REGINA BARRETT; JOSEPH LEWIS; (FIRST REQUEST) TIMOTHY KNATZ; DAVID WILLIS AND JO GENTRY, Defendants. Plaintiff, Lausteveion Johnson (“Plaintiff”), by and through his appointed counsel, Frank M. Flansburg, III, Esq., Emily A. Ellis, Esq., and Troy P. Domina, Esq., of the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and Defendants, James Dzurenda, Regina Barrett, David Willis, and Jo Gentry (“Defendants”) by and through their counsel Aaron D. Ford, Esq., and Austin T. Barnum, Esq., hereby submit this Joint Stipulation and Order to Continue the Status Conference Scheduled for July 8, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. On May 24, 2022, this Court ordered a status conference in this matter to be held on Friday, July 8, 2022 at 10:00am (the “Status Conference”) to discuss the pretrial needs of the case and schedule a trial date (the “Order”).1 Counsel for plaintiff was to further confer with Plaintiff 1 See Minute Order, dated May 24, 2022. regarding previously proposed exhibits, witnesses, and motions in limine to help streamline pretrial proceedings in the time between the Order and the Status Conference. Despite making appropriate arrangements and preparation with the Nevada Department of Correction’s telephonic and electronic mail service providers, counsel for Plaintiff, Frank M. Flansburg, Emily A. Ellis, and Troy P. Domina had difficulties communicating with Plaintiff, Lausteveion Johnson, in the Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Carson City, Nevada. With assistance from Mr. Austin Barnum at the Attorney General’s office, Plaintiff’s counsel was able to resolve the issue and establish communication on June 23, 2022. Since that time, Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff have worked diligently to prepare for the Status Conference, but were unable to complete discussions regarding all of the topics and issues necessary to participate in the Status Conference due to the delay in establishing communication. As a result, the Parties conferred and request the Status Conference be continued to enable Plaintiff and his counsel to complete their preparation, confer with Defendants’ counsel, and report back to the Court at a conference. Plaintiff’s counsel and Senior Deputy Attorney General Austin Barnum held a meet and confer via teleconference concerning this extension on July 5, 2022. Mr. Barnum expressed no objection and agreed to providing more time for Plaintiff and counsel to prepare. A. EXTENDING TIME. (1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).2 2 LR IA 6-1(a): “A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted.” Further, a “stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file an opposition or reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion, must state in its opening paragraph the filing date of the subject motion or the date of the subject hearing.” LR IA 6-1(c). The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement is sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). Regarding “good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987)). Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should “normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004). Based on the foregoing, the Parties hereby stipulate and request the Court grant a two-week continuance to July 22, 2022, or a date at the Court’s convenience, for the Status Conference to enable Plaintiff and his counsel to complete their preparation and confer with Defendants’ counsel before reporting to the Court. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 ) TH. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court 3 continue the Status Conference for a period of two weeks, to July 22, 2022, or to a date at the 4 Court’s convenience. 5 DATED this 6th day of July, 2022 DATED this 6" day of July, 2022 6 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF BY:_/s/ Emily A. Ellis ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., BY: _/s/ Austin T. Barnum EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ., AARON D. FORD, Attorney General 8 TROY P. DOMINA, ESQ., AUSTIN T. BARNUM Deputy Attorney General 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson Attorneys for Defendants Regina 10 Barrett, Frank Dreesen, James Dzurenda, Timothy Knatz, Joseph g 11 Lewis, and David Willis 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 13 foregoing stipulation is approved and the Status Conference currently scheduled for 14 July 8, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED and rescheduled for August 2, 2022 at 10:30 a.n 15 17 en 18 □□ 19 “UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: __July 8, 2022 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24409937.1 _4-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., NevadaBar No. 6974 fflansburg@bhfs.com EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 11956 eellis@bhfs.com TROY P. DOMINA, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 13862 tdomina@bhfs.com 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS v. CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR JULY 8, 2022 JAMES DZURENDA; FRANK DREESEN; REGINA BARRETT; JOSEPH LEWIS; (FIRST REQUEST) TIMOTHY KNATZ; DAVID WILLIS AND JO GENTRY, Defendants. Plaintiff, Lausteveion Johnson (“Plaintiff”), by and through his appointed counsel, Frank M. Flansburg, III, Esq., Emily A. Ellis, Esq., and Troy P. Domina, Esq., of the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and Defendants, James Dzurenda, Regina Barrett, David Willis, and Jo Gentry (“Defendants”) by and through their counsel Aaron D. Ford, Esq., and Austin T. Barnum, Esq., hereby submit this Joint Stipulation and Order to Continue the Status Conference Scheduled for July 8, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. On May 24, 2022, this Court ordered a status conference in this matter to be held on Friday, July 8, 2022 at 10:00am (the “Status Conference”) to discuss the pretrial needs of the case and schedule a trial date (the “Order”).1 Counsel for plaintiff was to further confer with Plaintiff 1 See Minute Order, dated May 24, 2022. regarding previously proposed exhibits, witnesses, and motions in limine to help streamline pretrial proceedings in the time between the Order and the Status Conference. Despite making appropriate arrangements and preparation with the Nevada Department of Correction’s telephonic and electronic mail service providers, counsel for Plaintiff, Frank M. Flansburg, Emily A. Ellis, and Troy P. Domina had difficulties communicating with Plaintiff, Lausteveion Johnson, in the Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Carson City, Nevada. With assistance from Mr. Austin Barnum at the Attorney General’s office, Plaintiff’s counsel was able to resolve the issue and establish communication on June 23, 2022. Since that time, Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff have worked diligently to prepare for the Status Conference, but were unable to complete discussions regarding all of the topics and issues necessary to participate in the Status Conference due to the delay in establishing communication. As a result, the Parties conferred and request the Status Conference be continued to enable Plaintiff and his counsel to complete their preparation, confer with Defendants’ counsel, and report back to the Court at a conference. Plaintiff’s counsel and Senior Deputy Attorney General Austin Barnum held a meet and confer via teleconference concerning this extension on July 5, 2022. Mr. Barnum expressed no objection and agreed to providing more time for Plaintiff and counsel to prepare. A. EXTENDING TIME. (1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).2 2 LR IA 6-1(a): “A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted.” Further, a “stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file an opposition or reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion, must state in its opening paragraph the filing date of the subject motion or the date of the subject hearing.” LR IA 6-1(c). The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement is sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). Regarding “good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987)). Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should “normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004). Based on the foregoing, the Parties hereby stipulate and request the Court grant a two-week continuance to July 22, 2022, or a date at the Court’s convenience, for the Status Conference to enable Plaintiff and his counsel to complete their preparation and confer with Defendants’ counsel before reporting to the Court. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 ) TH. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court 3 continue the Status Conference for a period of two weeks, to July 22, 2022, or to a date at the 4 Court’s convenience. 5 DATED this 6th day of July, 2022 DATED this 6" day of July, 2022 6 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF BY:_/s/ Emily A. Ellis ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., BY: _/s/ Austin T. Barnum EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ., AARON D. FORD, Attorney General 8 TROY P. DOMINA, ESQ., AUSTIN T. BARNUM Deputy Attorney General 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson Attorneys for Defendants Regina 10 Barrett, Frank Dreesen, James Dzurenda, Timothy Knatz, Joseph g 11 Lewis, and David Willis 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 13 foregoing stipulation is approved and the Status Conference currently scheduled for 14 July 8, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED and rescheduled for August 2, 2022 at 10:30 a.n 15 17 en 18 □□ 19 “UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: __July 8, 2022 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24409937.1 _4-
2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b), and Section IV of the District of Nevada 3 Electronic Filing Procedures, I hereby certify that I am an employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber 4 Schreck, LLP and that on the 6" day of July, 2022, I caused to be served a true and correct copy 5 of STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS CONFERENCE 6 SCHEDULED FOR JULY 8, 2022 (FIRST REQUEST), via electronic service through the 7 Court’s CM/ECF Filing System, to all parties and counsel as identified on the court-generated 8 Notice of Electronic Filing. 9 10 _/s/ Paula Kay 11 an employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP : 12
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24409937.1 _5-