KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6228 TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 13872 4 1160 North Town Center Drive Suite 330 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 (702)998-1022 6 nvefile@hallevans.com Attorneys for Defendants 7 10 ANTHONY ESSICK JOHNSON, an CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-01388-CDS-MDC individual, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 WALMART, INC., WAL-MART REAL STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST; DOES I CONTINUE DISCOVERY PLAN 15 through XXX, inclusive and ROE BUSINESS AND SCHEDULING ORDER ENTITIES I through XXX, inclusive, (FORUTH REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 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 LADAH 20 LAW FIRM, and Defendants WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS 21 TRUST (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their attorney of 22 record, KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. and TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ., of the law firm HALL & 23 EVANS, LLC, submit this STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 24 DEADLINES (FOURTH REQUEST) pursuant to LR 26-4 for the Court’s consideration. 25 . . . 26 . . . 27 . . . . . . 1
I. 3 1. A Rule 26(f) Case Conference was held and a Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order was filed. 4 2. Plaintiff served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 5 3. Defendants served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 6 4. Plaintiff served a first supplement to FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 7 5. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for production to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to 8 which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 9 6. Plaintiff propounded his first set of interrogatories to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to which 10 Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 11 7. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for admissions to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to 12 which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 13 8. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of requests for production to Plaintiff, to 14 which Plaintiff responded. 15 9. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of interrogatories to Plaintiff, to which 16 Plaintiff responded. 17 10. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of requests for admission to Plaintiff, to 18 which Plaintiff responded. 19 11. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its first supplement to its FRCP 26(a) disclosures. 20 12. Plaintiff served a second supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and an initial designation of 21 their expert witnesses and documents. 22 13. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its second supplemental 26(a) disclosures. 23 14. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its initial expert disclosures. 24 15. Plaintiff served a third supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and their first supplement to 25 their expert witness and documents disclosures. 26 16. Plaintiff served a fourth supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and their rebuttal expert 27 designation. 1
18. Deposition of Plaintiff has been taken. 2 II. 4 1. Depositions of the Defendant’s 30(b)(6) representative(s). 5 2. Depositions of percipient witnesses. 6 3. Depositions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. 7 4. Depositions of experts. 8 5. Additional written discovery as needed. 11 A. Excusable Neglect can be Proven as an Exception to Submission of Stipulation within 12 21 Days of Expert Deadline 13 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. Further, “[a] request made within 15 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.” Local Rule 26-3. 16 The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite 17 the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 In making this determination, courts consider whether relief from the scheduling order is sought 19 based on the development of matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the 20 schedule was established. E.g., Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 21 Lastly, “[w]hen a request to extend case management deadlines is made by stipulation, courts may 22 consider the joint nature of the request in deciding whether the circumstances warrant an amendment 23 to the scheduling order.” Williams v. James River Grp., 627 F.Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022). 24 When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has 25 expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co. 26 v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable 27 neglect analysis is guided by factors that include (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; 1 and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Branch Banking, 871 F.3d at 765. Magistrate judges 2 have broad discretion to manage the discovery process “in the interests of dispatch and fairness.” V5 3 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 361 (D. Nev. 2019); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 4 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 Good cause exists in this case to grant a discovery extension. Both parties in this case are 6 agreeable to the stipulated extension of time as to continue diligently conducting discovery of this 7 matter showing no prejudice to either party in the interest of fairness to both parties. While the parties 8 were working diligently to progress this case, Defendant’s counsel experienced personal conflicts, 9 including tragic deaths in the family along with pre-arranged extended vacation time. These 10 instances have created scheduling conflicts regarding the remaining depositions. Further, Defendant 11 wishes to depose both of Plaintiff’s children which has required specialized scheduling arrangements 12 to ensure that a guardian be present. Finally, recent rebuttal expert disclosures have revealed the 13 need to take additional depositions, and this need cannot be met within the currently established 14 deadlines. This request will not impact the trial date as this matter has not yet been set for trial. No 15 prejudice will arise to either party, as both parties agree an extension is warranted in light of the 16 deposition scheduling conflicts. 17 The "good cause" standard is liberally construed to ensure that cases are tried on their merits, not 18 technicalities. See Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Wong v. 19 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Deadlines must not be enforced 20 mindlessly, of course.") Local Rule 26-3 sets additional requirements and provides that motions 21 submitted within 21 days of the date they seek to change must show good cause. LR 26-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6228 TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 13872 4 1160 North Town Center Drive Suite 330 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 (702)998-1022 6 nvefile@hallevans.com Attorneys for Defendants 7 10 ANTHONY ESSICK JOHNSON, an CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-01388-CDS-MDC individual, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 WALMART, INC., WAL-MART REAL STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST; DOES I CONTINUE DISCOVERY PLAN 15 through XXX, inclusive and ROE BUSINESS AND SCHEDULING ORDER ENTITIES I through XXX, inclusive, (FORUTH REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 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 LADAH 20 LAW FIRM, and Defendants WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS 21 TRUST (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their attorney of 22 record, KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. and TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ., of the law firm HALL & 23 EVANS, LLC, submit this STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 24 DEADLINES (FOURTH REQUEST) pursuant to LR 26-4 for the Court’s consideration. 25 . . . 26 . . . 27 . . . . . . 1
I. 3 1. A Rule 26(f) Case Conference was held and a Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order was filed. 4 2. Plaintiff served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 5 3. Defendants served initial FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 6 4. Plaintiff served a first supplement to FRCP 26(e)(1) disclosures. 7 5. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for production to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to 8 which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 9 6. Plaintiff propounded his first set of interrogatories to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to which 10 Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 11 7. Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for admissions to Defendant Walmart, Inc., to 12 which Defendant Walmart, Inc., responded. 13 8. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of requests for production to Plaintiff, to 14 which Plaintiff responded. 15 9. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of interrogatories to Plaintiff, to which 16 Plaintiff responded. 17 10. Defendant Walmart, Inc. propounded its first set of requests for admission to Plaintiff, to 18 which Plaintiff responded. 19 11. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its first supplement to its FRCP 26(a) disclosures. 20 12. Plaintiff served a second supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and an initial designation of 21 their expert witnesses and documents. 22 13. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its second supplemental 26(a) disclosures. 23 14. Defendant Walmart, Inc. served its initial expert disclosures. 24 15. Plaintiff served a third supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and their first supplement to 25 their expert witness and documents disclosures. 26 16. Plaintiff served a fourth supplement to FRCP 26(a) disclosures and their rebuttal expert 27 designation. 1
18. Deposition of Plaintiff has been taken. 2 II. 4 1. Depositions of the Defendant’s 30(b)(6) representative(s). 5 2. Depositions of percipient witnesses. 6 3. Depositions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. 7 4. Depositions of experts. 8 5. Additional written discovery as needed. 11 A. Excusable Neglect can be Proven as an Exception to Submission of Stipulation within 12 21 Days of Expert Deadline 13 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. Further, “[a] request made within 15 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.” Local Rule 26-3. 16 The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite 17 the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 In making this determination, courts consider whether relief from the scheduling order is sought 19 based on the development of matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the 20 schedule was established. E.g., Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 21 Lastly, “[w]hen a request to extend case management deadlines is made by stipulation, courts may 22 consider the joint nature of the request in deciding whether the circumstances warrant an amendment 23 to the scheduling order.” Williams v. James River Grp., 627 F.Supp. 3d 1172, 1178 (D. Nev. 2022). 24 When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has 25 expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co. 26 v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable 27 neglect analysis is guided by factors that include (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; 1 and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Branch Banking, 871 F.3d at 765. Magistrate judges 2 have broad discretion to manage the discovery process “in the interests of dispatch and fairness.” V5 3 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 361 (D. Nev. 2019); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 4 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 Good cause exists in this case to grant a discovery extension. Both parties in this case are 6 agreeable to the stipulated extension of time as to continue diligently conducting discovery of this 7 matter showing no prejudice to either party in the interest of fairness to both parties. While the parties 8 were working diligently to progress this case, Defendant’s counsel experienced personal conflicts, 9 including tragic deaths in the family along with pre-arranged extended vacation time. These 10 instances have created scheduling conflicts regarding the remaining depositions. Further, Defendant 11 wishes to depose both of Plaintiff’s children which has required specialized scheduling arrangements 12 to ensure that a guardian be present. Finally, recent rebuttal expert disclosures have revealed the 13 need to take additional depositions, and this need cannot be met within the currently established 14 deadlines. This request will not impact the trial date as this matter has not yet been set for trial. No 15 prejudice will arise to either party, as both parties agree an extension is warranted in light of the 16 deposition scheduling conflicts. 17 The "good cause" standard is liberally construed to ensure that cases are tried on their merits, not 18 technicalities. See Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Wong v. 19 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Deadlines must not be enforced 20 mindlessly, of course.") Local Rule 26-3 sets additional requirements and provides that motions 21 submitted within 21 days of the date they seek to change must show good cause. LR 26-3. 22 Dae Sung Hi Tech. Co., LTD v. D&B Sales, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132973, *1-2. Defendant 23 has been working to identify and retain 30(b)(6) representatives to be deposed, as well as identifying 24 those individuals that still need to be deposed to obtain a proper factual understanding of the case at 25 issue. The extension of time allows for Plaintiff to not be prejudiced by the lack of available 26 admissible evidence for their lawsuit. As both parties are willing and agreeable to an extension of 27 time to complete discovery, it is in the Court’s best interest to grant as not to waste the Court’s time 1 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request an extension of the current deadlines as 2 indicated below. This is the fourth request for an extension of discovery in this matter. 3 IV. 5 CURRENT DISCOVERY PROPOSED DEADLINE 6 DEADLINE 7 Add Parties and Amend Pleadings CLOSED CLOSED 8 Initial Expert Disclosure CLOSED CLOSED 9 Rebuttal Expert Disclosure August 7, 2024 CLOSED 10 Close of Discovery September 6, 2024 December 5, 2024 11 Dispositive Motions October 7, 2024 January 6, 2025 12 Joint Pretrial Order November 6, 2024 February 4, 2025 13 . . . 14 . . . 15 . . . 16 . . . 17 . . . 18 . . . 19 . . . 20 . . . 21 . . . 22 . . . 23 . . . 24 . . . 25 . . . 26 . . . 27 . . . 1 V. 3 No trial date has been set. 4 This Stipulation is not made for purposes of undue delay of discovery or trial in this matt 5 but is submitted in the interest of realizing a trial on the merits. ‘ DATED this 27" day of August, 2024. DATED this 27" day of August, 2024.
8 /s/ Brandon P. Smith _/s/ Kurt R. Bonds __ RAMZY P. LADAH, ESQ. KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. 9 Nevada Bar No. 11405 Nevada Bar No. 6228 BRANDON P. SMITH, ESQ. TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ. || Nevada Bar No. 10443 Nevada Bar No. 13872 ll 517 South Third Street 1160 North Town Center Drive, Suite 330 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 12 Counsel for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants 14 IT IS SO ORDERED:
□ DATED: 9/24/24 L Mp, oD tpl Ab JK po ff \ if i 18 Hon. “aximiliano ). Couwillier HI 19 United States Magistrate"Judge 20 Submitted by: HALL & EVANS, LLC 21 /s/ Kurt R. Bonds 22 || KURTR. BONDS, ESQ. 23 Nevada Bar No. 6228 TANYA M. FRASER, ESQ. 24 Nevada Bar No. 13872 1160 North Town Center Drive, Suite 330 25 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 26 Attorneys for Defendants 27 28 6 KB/20147-§