1 FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., Nevada Bar 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, (SECOND 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 (Second Request). 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, because the Parties had not had the opportunity to formalize the agreement and 10 prepare a stipulation by the Court ordered deadline, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Order 11 to Continue the Deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Regarding Reopening 12 Discovery (First Request) (“First Stipulation”). (ECF No. 205.) As stated in the First Stipulation, 13 counsel for Defendants had recently received orders from the military that he would be deployed 14 for three weeks, starting August 26, 2022, during which time he would not be able to participate in 15 this case. Additionally, counsel for Plaintiff, Troy Domina, left the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt 16 Farber Schreck, LLP, with his last of August 26, 2022. Because of the foregoing, the Parties 17 required additional time to formalize the stipulation to reopen discovery and requested that the 18 Court extend such deadline to October 7, 2022. The Court granted the First Stipulation on August 19 30, 2022. (ECF No. 206.) 20 Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel worked to restaff the matter and Defendants’ counsel was 21 deployed, unable to work on the matter. Following Defendants’ counsel’s return, Plaintiff’s 22 counsel was able to restaff the matter and the Parties continued to discuss the terms for reopening 23 discovery. Counsel are currently working on the formal stipulation to reopen discovery, but have 24 been unable to finalize the same for submission by the October 7, 2022, deadline because of the 25 complexities and scope of the agreement, as well as scheduling issues. As such, the Parties file the 26 instant stipulation respectfully seeking one additional week to file the stipulation to reopen 27 discovery, up to and including, October 21, 2022. 28 1 II. LEGAL DISCUSSION 2 A. EXTENDING TIME. 3 (1)In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 4 court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request 5 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 6 because of excusable neglect. 7 Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).1 8 The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive 9 flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement is 10 sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 11 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see 12 also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 13 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of 14 Civil Procedure is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases 15 are tried on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). 16 Regarding “good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 17 procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux 18 Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); 19 Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987)). 20 Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to grant the 21 requested extension. As such, the Parties hereby stipulate and request the Court grant them an 22 extension of the deadline for the parties to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 23 Regarding Reopening Discovery to October 21, 2022. 24 . . . 25 26 1 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 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 | I. 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 21, 2022. 5 || DATED this 7th day of October, 2022 DATED this 7th day of October, 2022 6 || BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF 7 LLP ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:_/s/ Emily A. Ellis, Esq. BY: _/s/ Austin T. Barnum, Esq. 8 FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ. AARON D. FORD, Attorney General EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ. AUSTIN T.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ., Nevada Bar 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, (SECOND 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 (Second Request). 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, because the Parties had not had the opportunity to formalize the agreement and 10 prepare a stipulation by the Court ordered deadline, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Order 11 to Continue the Deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Regarding Reopening 12 Discovery (First Request) (“First Stipulation”). (ECF No. 205.) As stated in the First Stipulation, 13 counsel for Defendants had recently received orders from the military that he would be deployed 14 for three weeks, starting August 26, 2022, during which time he would not be able to participate in 15 this case. Additionally, counsel for Plaintiff, Troy Domina, left the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt 16 Farber Schreck, LLP, with his last of August 26, 2022. Because of the foregoing, the Parties 17 required additional time to formalize the stipulation to reopen discovery and requested that the 18 Court extend such deadline to October 7, 2022. The Court granted the First Stipulation on August 19 30, 2022. (ECF No. 206.) 20 Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel worked to restaff the matter and Defendants’ counsel was 21 deployed, unable to work on the matter. Following Defendants’ counsel’s return, Plaintiff’s 22 counsel was able to restaff the matter and the Parties continued to discuss the terms for reopening 23 discovery. Counsel are currently working on the formal stipulation to reopen discovery, but have 24 been unable to finalize the same for submission by the October 7, 2022, deadline because of the 25 complexities and scope of the agreement, as well as scheduling issues. As such, the Parties file the 26 instant stipulation respectfully seeking one additional week to file the stipulation to reopen 27 discovery, up to and including, October 21, 2022. 28 1 II. LEGAL DISCUSSION 2 A. EXTENDING TIME. 3 (1)In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 4 court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request 5 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 6 because of excusable neglect. 7 Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1).1 8 The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive 9 flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement is 10 sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 11 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see 12 also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 13 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906). Further, this rule, like all the Federal Rules of 14 Civil Procedure is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases 15 are tried on the merits. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). 16 Regarding “good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 17 procedural and statutory contexts. Id. (citing several circuits Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux 18 Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004); Thomas v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992); 19 Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir.1987)). 20 Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to grant the 21 requested extension. As such, the Parties hereby stipulate and request the Court grant them an 22 extension of the deadline for the parties to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 23 Regarding Reopening Discovery to October 21, 2022. 24 . . . 25 26 1 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 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 | I. 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 21, 2022. 5 || DATED this 7th day of October, 2022 DATED this 7th day of October, 2022 6 || BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF 7 LLP ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:_/s/ Emily A. Ellis, Esq. BY: _/s/ Austin T. Barnum, Esq. 8 FRANK M. FLANSBURG III, ESQ. AARON D. FORD, Attorney General EMILY A. ELLIS, ESQ. AUSTIN T. BARNUM, Deputy 9 Attorney General 10 ||| Attorneys for Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson Attorneys for Defendants 2 11 : 12 1B ORDER 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 15 || foregoing stipulation is approved and the deadline to file a Joint Discovery Plan and 16 || Scheduling Order Regarding Discovery currently scheduled for October 7, 2022, is 17 | VACATED and rescheduled for October 21, 2022. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 . UNITEA) STA AGISTRATE JUDGE
2 DATE: October 11, 2022 23 24 25 26 27 28 24600108.4 _4-