Johnson v. Gentry

Opinion

1 FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., NevadaBar No. 6974 fflansburg@bhfs.com 2 EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 11956 eellis@bhfs.com 3 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Telephone: 702.382.2101 5 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:17-cv-01671-APG-EJY 11 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE TO 12 v. FILE A JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER 13 JAMES DZURENDA; FRANK DREESEN; REGARDING REOPENING REGINA BARRETT; JOSEPH LEWIS; DISCOVERY 14 TIMOTHY KNATZ; DAVID WILLIS AND JO GENTRY, (FIRST REQUEST) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, Lausteveion Johnson (“Plaintiff”), by and through his appointed counsel, Frank 18 M. Flansburg, III, Esq., and Emily A. Ellis, Esq., of the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, 19 LLP, and Defendants, James Dzurenda, Frank Dreesen, Regina Barrett, Joseph Lewis, Timothy 20 Knatz, David Willis, and Jo Gentry (“Defendants”, and together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”) by 21 and through their counsel Aaron D. Ford, Esq., and Austin T. Barnum, Esq., hereby submit this 22 Joint Stipulation and Order to Continue the Deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling 23 Order Regarding Reopening Discovery. 24 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 25 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 26 On August 2, 2022, this Court held a status conference in this matter (the “Status 27 Conference”). During the Status Conference, the Parties informed the Court that they were working 28 1 together to agree upon the reopening of discovery and the parameters of the same. In light of this, 2 the Court ordered the Parties to work together and file, on or before August 26, 2022, either (i) a 3 stipulation to reopen discovery, which would include a proposed revised discovery plan, or (ii) a 4 joint motion with competing proposals due. Following the Status Conference, the Parties worked 5 diligently to agree upon the terms of a stipulation to reopen discovery, including engaging in written 6 meet and confer efforts as well as lengthy personal telephonic conferences. As a result of these 7 good faith meet and confer efforts, the Parties have orally agreed to certain terms for reopening 8 discovery. 9 However, the Parties have not had the opportunity to formalize the agreement and prepare 10 a stipulation by the Court ordered deadline. That is, counsel for Defendants recently received orders 11 from the military that he would be deployed for three weeks, starting August 26, 2022, during 12 which time he will not be able to participate in this case. Additionally, counsel for Plaintiff, Troy 13 Domina, left the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, with his last of August 26, 14 2022. Because of the foregoing, the Parties require additional time to formalize the stipulation to 15 reopen discovery and hereby request that the Court extend such deadline to October 7, 2022. 16 Moreover, the instant stipulation is being filed after the expiration of the August 26th deadline 17 because there was a misunderstanding as to what day was Defendants’ counsel’s last day in the 18 office, and counsel had already left for duty before the stipulation could be agreed upon and 19 submitted to the Court. 20 II. LEGAL DISCUSSION 21 A. EXTENDING TIME. 22 (1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 23 court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request 24 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 25 because of excusable neglect. 26 Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).1 27 1 LR IA 6-1(a): “A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the 28 extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the 1 The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive 2 flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement is 3 sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 4 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see 5 also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 6 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases 8 are tried on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). 9 Regarding “good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 10 procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux 11 Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); 12 Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987)). 13 Based on the foregoing, the Parties submit that excusable neglect exists surrounding the 14 timing of the instant request and that good cause exists to grant the requested extension. As such, 15 the Parties hereby stipulate and request the Court grant them an extension of the deadline for the 16 parties to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Regarding Reopening Discovery to 17 October 7, 2022. 18 . . . 19 . . . 20 . . . 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 28 paragraph the filing date of the subject motion or the date of the subject hearing.” LR IA 6-1(c). 1 |) TH. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court 3 || continue the deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Regarding Reopening 4 || Discovery to October 7, 2022. 5 DATED this 29th day of August, 2022 DATED this 29th day of August, 2022 6 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 || | BY:_4/ Emily A. Ellis FRANK M. FLANSBURG ITI, ESQ. BY: _/s/Austin T. Barnum 8 EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ. AARON D. FORD, Attorney General AUSTIN T. BARNUM Deputy 9 || | Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson Attorney General 10 Attorneys for Defendants Regina Barrett, Frank Dreesen, James Dzurenda, Timothy g 11 Knatz, Joseph Lewis, and David Willis zs 12 13 2, #14 ORDER 3 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 16 || foregoing stipulation is approved and the deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and 17 || Scheduling Order Regarding Discovery currently scheduled for August 26, 2022, 18 |} is VACATED and rescheduled for October 7, 2022. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 : UNITED STA ISTRATE JUDGE DATE: August 29, 2022 23 24 25 26 27 28 24600108.3 _4-