RAMZY P. LADAH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11405 BRANDON P. SMITH, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 10443 LADAH LAW FIRM 4 Third Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 5 litigation@ladahlaw.com T: 702.252.0055 61] F: 702.248.0055 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRIST COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 > > ANTHONY ESSICK JOHNSON, an CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01388-CDS-MDC individual, 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY AND fo 14 VS. SCHEDULING ORDER WALMART, INC., WAL-MART REAL 15|| ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST; DOES | | (HIRD REQUEST) through XXX, inclusive and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through XXX, inclusive, 7 Defendants.
18 Plaintiff ANTHONY ESSICK JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys of 19 record, RAMZY PAUL LADAH, ESQ. and BRANDON P. SMITH, ESQ., of the law firm 20 LADAH LAW FIRM, and Defendants WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART REAL ESTATE 21 BUSINESS TRUST (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their 23 attorneys of record, KURT R. BONDS, ESQ., TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ., and CASSIDY 24 PAPPAS, ESQ., of the law firm HALL & EVANS, LLC, submit this STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (THIRD REQUEST) pursuant to LR 26 26-4 for the Court’s consideration. 27 28
1 I. 3 1. A Rule 26(f) Case Conference was held and a Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order was filed. 6 2. Plaintiff served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures.
7 3. Defendants served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 8 4. Plaintiff served a first supplement to FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 9 5. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for production to Defendant Walmart,
10 Inc., to which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 11 6. Plaintiff propounded his first set of interrogatories to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to 12 2 which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 13 14 7. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for admissions to Defendant
15 Walmart, Inc., to which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded.
16 8. Walmart propounded its first set of interrogatories to Plaintiff, to which 17 Defendant Walmart, Inc. responded.
18 9. Walmart propounded its first set of requests for production to Plaintiff, to which 19 Defendant Walmart, Inc. responded. 20 10. Walmart propounded its first set of interrogatories to Plaintiff, to which 21 2 Defendant Walmart, Inc. responded. 23 11. Deposition of Plaintiff. 24 Il. 26 1. Deposition of Defendant Walmart, Inc. FRCP 30(b)(6) witness(es). 27 2. Depositions of percipient witnesses. 28
1 3. Depositions of Plaintiff's treating physicians. 2 4. Expert disclosures. 3 5. Depositions of experts. 4 6. Additional written discovery as needed. HI.
A. Excusable Neglect can be Proven as an Exception to Submission of Stipulation within 8 21 Days of Expert Deadline A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 10 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. Further, “[a] request made il within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.” Local = Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be = IS met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 M4 (9th Cir. 1992). In making this determination, courts consider whether relief from the scheduling IS order is sought based on the development of matters that could not have been reasonably 16 anticipated at the time the schedule was established. E.g., Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Lastly, “[w]hen a request to extend case management deadlines is 18 made by stipulation, courts may consider the joint nature of the request in deciding whether the circumstances warrant an amendment to the scheduling order.” Williams v. James River Grp., 20 627 F.Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022). 1 When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has 22 expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co. 23 vy. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable 24 neglect analysis is guided by factors that include (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing 2s party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for 26 the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Branch Banking, 871 F.3d at 765. 2 Magistrate judges have broad discretion to manage the discovery process “in the interests of 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RAMZY P. LADAH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11405 BRANDON P. SMITH, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 10443 LADAH LAW FIRM 4 Third Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 5 litigation@ladahlaw.com T: 702.252.0055 61] F: 702.248.0055 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRIST COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 > > ANTHONY ESSICK JOHNSON, an CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01388-CDS-MDC individual, 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY AND fo 14 VS. SCHEDULING ORDER WALMART, INC., WAL-MART REAL 15|| ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST; DOES | | (HIRD REQUEST) through XXX, inclusive and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through XXX, inclusive, 7 Defendants.
18 Plaintiff ANTHONY ESSICK JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys of 19 record, RAMZY PAUL LADAH, ESQ. and BRANDON P. SMITH, ESQ., of the law firm 20 LADAH LAW FIRM, and Defendants WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART REAL ESTATE 21 BUSINESS TRUST (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their 23 attorneys of record, KURT R. BONDS, ESQ., TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ., and CASSIDY 24 PAPPAS, ESQ., of the law firm HALL & EVANS, LLC, submit this STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (THIRD REQUEST) pursuant to LR 26 26-4 for the Court’s consideration. 27 28
1 I. 3 1. A Rule 26(f) Case Conference was held and a Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order was filed. 6 2. Plaintiff served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures.
7 3. Defendants served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 8 4. Plaintiff served a first supplement to FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 9 5. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for production to Defendant Walmart,
10 Inc., to which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 11 6. Plaintiff propounded his first set of interrogatories to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to 12 2 which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 13 14 7. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for admissions to Defendant
15 Walmart, Inc., to which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded.
16 8. Walmart propounded its first set of interrogatories to Plaintiff, to which 17 Defendant Walmart, Inc. responded.
18 9. Walmart propounded its first set of requests for production to Plaintiff, to which 19 Defendant Walmart, Inc. responded. 20 10. Walmart propounded its first set of interrogatories to Plaintiff, to which 21 2 Defendant Walmart, Inc. responded. 23 11. Deposition of Plaintiff. 24 Il. 26 1. Deposition of Defendant Walmart, Inc. FRCP 30(b)(6) witness(es). 27 2. Depositions of percipient witnesses. 28
1 3. Depositions of Plaintiff's treating physicians. 2 4. Expert disclosures. 3 5. Depositions of experts. 4 6. Additional written discovery as needed. HI.
A. Excusable Neglect can be Proven as an Exception to Submission of Stipulation within 8 21 Days of Expert Deadline A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 10 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. Further, “[a] request made il within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.” Local = Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be = IS met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 M4 (9th Cir. 1992). In making this determination, courts consider whether relief from the scheduling IS order is sought based on the development of matters that could not have been reasonably 16 anticipated at the time the schedule was established. E.g., Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Lastly, “[w]hen a request to extend case management deadlines is 18 made by stipulation, courts may consider the joint nature of the request in deciding whether the circumstances warrant an amendment to the scheduling order.” Williams v. James River Grp., 20 627 F.Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022). 1 When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has 22 expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co. 23 vy. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable 24 neglect analysis is guided by factors that include (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing 2s party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for 26 the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Branch Banking, 871 F.3d at 765. 2 Magistrate judges have broad discretion to manage the discovery process “in the interests of 28
1 dispatch and fairness.” V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 361 (D. Nev. 2019); see also 2 Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 The "good cause" standard is liberally construed to ensure that cases are tried on their merits, not technicalities. See Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010); see 5 also Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Deadlines must 6 not be enforced mindlessly, of course.") Local Rule 26-3 sets additional requirements and 7 provides that motions submitted within 21 days of the date they seek to change must show good 8 cause. LR 26-3. Dae Sung Hi Tech. Co., LTD v. D&B Sales, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9 132973, *1-2. 10 Good cause exists in this case to grant a discovery extension. Both parties in this case are 11 agreeable to the stipulated extension of time, and thus neither party suffers any prejudice. 12 Unfortunately, despite the parties’ diligent efforts to move this case forward, Plaintiff's medical Rs 13 || expert experienced a delay in providing his report which impacted production of Plaintiff's other 14 experts’ reports. Excusable neglect for the instant stipulation, submitted within 21 days of the 15 subject deadline to-be-continued because Plaintiff was not informed of this issue until days prior 16 to the instant deadline. 17 Additionally, Plaintiff's discovery has been delayed as Defendants had been working to 18 identify potential third parties whose joinder may be necessary in this action. To that end, 19 Plaintiff has requested supplementation to Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories 20 and requests for production, and the information produced therein potentially bears on □□□□□□□□□□□ expert opinions. Where the parties believed such information would be produced in sufficient 22 time prior to the expert disclosure deadline, such production has not been completed. 23 The parties’ request will not impact the trial date as this matter has not yet been set for 24 trial. Further, no prejudice will arise to either party, as both parties agree an extension is 25 warranted in light of the issues with Plaintiff’s experts and the difficulties faced by Defendants in producing the requested information. As both parties have determined that an extension is 27 necessary for the parties to develop their respective cases-in-chief, the requested extension is 28 consistent with the Court’s policy to adjudicate matters based upon their merits.
1 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request an extension of the current deadlines as 2 indicated below. This is the second request for an extension of discovery in this matter. 3 IV.
wee 14 alt
i|fee
18] ... 19])... 20 eee 21 wee
a3i|"" a4llrc: --- 26 ..- 27 eee 28
1 V. 3 No trial date has been set. This Stipulation is not made for purposes of undue delay of discovery or trial in this matter but is submitted in the interest of realizing a trial on the merits.
7 STIPULATED AND AGREED TO: g || DATED this 4" day of June 2024. DATED this 4™ day of June 2024. 10 /s| Brandeu P. Smith, Eog, lo] Kart Goude 11 RAMZY PAUL LADAH, ESQ. KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. 12 Nevada Bar No. 11405 Nevada Bar No. 6228 B BRANDON P. SMITH, ESQ. TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ. Sey a Bar NO. Os Nevada Bar No. 13872 mH 4 ae ee CASSIDY PAPPAS, ESQ. Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nevada Bar No. 16738 15 1160 North Town Center Drive, Suite 330 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 16 Attorneys for Defendant
18 20 IT IS SO ORDERED: 21 DATED: 6/18/2024 22 Parties must use the correct case number, “2:23-cv-01388-CDS-MDC,” in all future filings. JZ - 23 A fff ff! ff 24 _____~g@F* _Ypy Hon. Maxizpiliano D. @duvillierY 25 United Stes Magist#Ate Judge 26 27 28
3 Submitted by: □□□ Braudou P. Smith Nevada Bar No. 10443 6 517 S. Third Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 7 Attorney for Plaintiff 9 10
11 12 =
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28