Nevada Bar No. 5781 Nevada Bar No. 14892 Nevada Bar No. 16454 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Fax: (702) 796-7181 landerson@kcnvlaw.com kkalkowski@kcnvlaw.com tstuddard@kcnvlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Kevin McMahill and Michael Trumble
LYLE EDWARD DICKSON, Case No.: 2:25-cv-02152-ART-MDC
Plaintiffs, vs. STIPULATION TO EXTEND KEVIN McMAHILL, et al., (First Request) [ECF No. 24] Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties that the discovery cut- off date of June 1, 2026, be continued for a period of sixty days up to and including Friday July 31, 2026, for the purpose of the parties being able to complete written discovery, taking depositions, serving third-party subpoenas, and to allow disclosure of expert and rebuttal expert reports. / / / / / / Defendants, Kevin McMahill and Michael Trumble (“LVMPD Defendants”) have provided their initial Rule 26 Disclosures to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has provided his initial disclosures as well and recently served Interrogatories on Defendant Trumble.
Defendant Trumble will provide responses to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories. The LVMPD Defendants are currently preparing initial written discovery requests to Plaintiff. After receiving the responses, the LVMPD Defendants will prepare any follow-up written discovery that is needed and then schedule depositions. Expert reports will be disclosed timely. III. REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED A standard of “good cause” governs this request because the to-be-extend deadlines have not yet expired. D. Nev. Local Rule 26-3. Good cause “primarily considers the diligence” of the parties seeking the extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably
be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”) (internal quotations omitted). “Motions for extension must include a statement specifying the discovery completed, a description of discovery remaining, the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied, and a proposed schedule for completing remaining discovery.” Hampton v. Nevada, No. 2:20-cv-00578-APG-DJA, 2021 WL 3573640, at *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2021). Plaintiff is representing himself in Proper Person and was traveling which resulted in an inadvertent delay in the parties submitting a Discovery Plan as required by Rule 26. Indeed, the LVMPD Defendants first appeared in this matter on December 1, 2025. However, the parties did not submit their joint Discovery Plan until February 25, 2026. [ECF No. 23]. Following this
Court’s Order denying a Motion for Subpoena filed by Plaintiff on February 19, 2025, the LVMPD Defendants prepared a proposed Discovery Plan with the deadlines pursuant to LR 26(b)(1) and sent it to Plaintiff. The Order granting the Discovery Plan was entered on February 27, 2026. [ECF No. 24]. Discovery just recently commenced and the deadline for disclosure of experts is fast
approaching; on April 2, 2026. The LVMPD Defendants’ expert has requested additional time, and additional discovery prior to providing an expert report. As such, an extension of this deadline is necessary. In addition, the parties just recently exchanged their Rule 26 Disclosures identifying witnesses and documents related to the claim in this matter on March 9, 2026, and March 10, 2026. The disclosures were made after the deadline to amend pleadings. Plaintiff requests an extension of the expired deadline so that he can evaluate any need to amend pleadings. LR 26-3 states in relevant part: A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). As indicated above, disclosures were not made by the parties prior to the deadline to amend pleadings and as such, submit that the excusable neglect standard is met when requesting an extension of the expired deadline. As such, the parties submit that these reasons satisfy the applicable good cause standard imposed by Local Rule 26-3 for an extension of the current discovery deadlines. The parties respectfully request this Court enter an order as follows:
Deadline Current Date Proposed New Date Discovery Cut Off June 1, 2026 July 31, 2026 Deadline to Amend Pleadings March 3, 2026 May 1, 2026 Disclosure of Experts April 2, 2026 June 1, 2026 Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts May 4, 2026 July 1, 2026 Dispositive Motion Deadline: July 1, 2026 August 31, 2026 Pre-Trial Order July 31, 2026 September 30, 2026 (A) Motions in Limine/Daubert Motions. Under LR 16-3(b), any motions in limine, including Daubert motions, shall be filed and
served 30 days prior to the commencement of Trial. Oppositions shall be filed and served 14 days thereafter. Reply briefs will be allowed only with leave of the Court. (B) Pretrial Order. Pursuant to LR 26(1)(e)(5), the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed with this Court no later than thirty days after the date set for filing dispositive motions, unless dispositive motions are filed, in which case the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be suspended until 30 days after the decision on the dispositive motions or further order of this Court. The disclosures required by FRCP 26(a)(3) and any objections shall be included in the final pretrial order. / / /
/ / / (C) Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. In accordance with LR 26-3, applications to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend a
deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received by the Court not later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to set was the result of excusable neglect. Any motion or stipulation to extend a deadline or to reopen discovery shall include: (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) A proposed scheduled for completing all discovery.
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nevada Bar No. 5781 Nevada Bar No. 14892 Nevada Bar No. 16454 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Fax: (702) 796-7181 landerson@kcnvlaw.com kkalkowski@kcnvlaw.com tstuddard@kcnvlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Kevin McMahill and Michael Trumble
LYLE EDWARD DICKSON, Case No.: 2:25-cv-02152-ART-MDC
Plaintiffs, vs. STIPULATION TO EXTEND KEVIN McMAHILL, et al., (First Request) [ECF No. 24] Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties that the discovery cut- off date of June 1, 2026, be continued for a period of sixty days up to and including Friday July 31, 2026, for the purpose of the parties being able to complete written discovery, taking depositions, serving third-party subpoenas, and to allow disclosure of expert and rebuttal expert reports. / / / / / / Defendants, Kevin McMahill and Michael Trumble (“LVMPD Defendants”) have provided their initial Rule 26 Disclosures to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has provided his initial disclosures as well and recently served Interrogatories on Defendant Trumble.
Defendant Trumble will provide responses to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories. The LVMPD Defendants are currently preparing initial written discovery requests to Plaintiff. After receiving the responses, the LVMPD Defendants will prepare any follow-up written discovery that is needed and then schedule depositions. Expert reports will be disclosed timely. III. REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED A standard of “good cause” governs this request because the to-be-extend deadlines have not yet expired. D. Nev. Local Rule 26-3. Good cause “primarily considers the diligence” of the parties seeking the extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably
be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”) (internal quotations omitted). “Motions for extension must include a statement specifying the discovery completed, a description of discovery remaining, the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied, and a proposed schedule for completing remaining discovery.” Hampton v. Nevada, No. 2:20-cv-00578-APG-DJA, 2021 WL 3573640, at *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2021). Plaintiff is representing himself in Proper Person and was traveling which resulted in an inadvertent delay in the parties submitting a Discovery Plan as required by Rule 26. Indeed, the LVMPD Defendants first appeared in this matter on December 1, 2025. However, the parties did not submit their joint Discovery Plan until February 25, 2026. [ECF No. 23]. Following this
Court’s Order denying a Motion for Subpoena filed by Plaintiff on February 19, 2025, the LVMPD Defendants prepared a proposed Discovery Plan with the deadlines pursuant to LR 26(b)(1) and sent it to Plaintiff. The Order granting the Discovery Plan was entered on February 27, 2026. [ECF No. 24]. Discovery just recently commenced and the deadline for disclosure of experts is fast
approaching; on April 2, 2026. The LVMPD Defendants’ expert has requested additional time, and additional discovery prior to providing an expert report. As such, an extension of this deadline is necessary. In addition, the parties just recently exchanged their Rule 26 Disclosures identifying witnesses and documents related to the claim in this matter on March 9, 2026, and March 10, 2026. The disclosures were made after the deadline to amend pleadings. Plaintiff requests an extension of the expired deadline so that he can evaluate any need to amend pleadings. LR 26-3 states in relevant part: A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). As indicated above, disclosures were not made by the parties prior to the deadline to amend pleadings and as such, submit that the excusable neglect standard is met when requesting an extension of the expired deadline. As such, the parties submit that these reasons satisfy the applicable good cause standard imposed by Local Rule 26-3 for an extension of the current discovery deadlines. The parties respectfully request this Court enter an order as follows:
Deadline Current Date Proposed New Date Discovery Cut Off June 1, 2026 July 31, 2026 Deadline to Amend Pleadings March 3, 2026 May 1, 2026 Disclosure of Experts April 2, 2026 June 1, 2026 Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts May 4, 2026 July 1, 2026 Dispositive Motion Deadline: July 1, 2026 August 31, 2026 Pre-Trial Order July 31, 2026 September 30, 2026 (A) Motions in Limine/Daubert Motions. Under LR 16-3(b), any motions in limine, including Daubert motions, shall be filed and
served 30 days prior to the commencement of Trial. Oppositions shall be filed and served 14 days thereafter. Reply briefs will be allowed only with leave of the Court. (B) Pretrial Order. Pursuant to LR 26(1)(e)(5), the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed with this Court no later than thirty days after the date set for filing dispositive motions, unless dispositive motions are filed, in which case the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be suspended until 30 days after the decision on the dispositive motions or further order of this Court. The disclosures required by FRCP 26(a)(3) and any objections shall be included in the final pretrial order. / / /
/ / / (C) Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. In accordance with LR 26-3, applications to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend a
deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received by the Court not later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to set was the result of excusable neglect. Any motion or stipulation to extend a deadline or to reopen discovery shall include: (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) A proposed scheduled for completing all discovery.
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / 1 The parties submit that good cause exists for an extension of the discovery deadlines for 2 the reasons stated above. The parties intend to conduct discovery in an expeditious manner. This 3 delay will not impede this matter and, in fact, will allow the parties time to continue to conduct 4 discovery in an effective and efficient manner. No Trial has been set, and dispositive motions 5 have not been filed. 6 DATED this 19" day of March, 2026. 7 KAEMPFER CROWELL By: _/s/ Lyssa Anderson By: _/s/Lyle Dickson 9 LYSSA S. ANDERSON Lyle Edward Dickson Nevada Bar No. 5781 2541 Banora Point KRISTOPHER KALKOWSKI 10 Nevada Bar No. 14892 Las Vegas, NV 89134 TRAVIS C. STUDDARD 11 Nevada Bar No. 16454 oe 1980 Festival Plaza Drive Plaintiff, Pro Se 12 Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 13 Attorneys for Defendants 14 Kevin McMahill and Michael Trumble 15 ORDER Of ey = 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. we Al wen
18 UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDBE jf oF 9 3-20-26
20 21 22 23 24 CROWELL Festival Plaza Drive Suite 650.