McDonnell v. Clark County Board Of Commissioners
Opinion
1 F. TRAVIS BUCHANAN, ESQ., & ASSOCIATES, PLLC F. TRAVIS BUCHANAN, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 9371 701 East Bridger Ave., Suite 540 3 Las Vegas Nevada 89101 Tel: (702) 331-5478 4 Fax: (702) 629-6919 Attorneys for Plaintiff KAREN MCDONNELL 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA F 8 KAREN MCDONNELL, an individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-00425-JCM-VCW 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 11 CLARK COUNTY; DOES 1-10, and ROE ENTITIES 1-10, inclusive, (THIRD REQUEST) 12 inclusive, 13 Defendant. 14 Plaintiff KAREN MCDONNELL (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel F. Travis 15 Buchanan, Esq. & Assoc., PLLC, and Defendant CLARK COUNTY (“Defendant”), through their 16 counsel Stephanie A. Mazzei, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the discovery remaining and 17 related deadlines for thirty (30) days. 18 19 This Stipulation is submitted and based upon the following: 20 A. Discovery Completed to Date. 21 To date, the Parties have exchanged initial and supplemental disclosures of documents and 22 witnesses pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1). Plaintiff has propounded written discovery including 23 interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission, and Defendant has served 24 responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests. Defendant has propounded written discovery 25 including interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission upon Plaintiff and 26 Plaintiff has served responses to Defendant’s written discovery requests. Plaintiff KAREN 27 1 of Witness, Clark County Manager - Kevin Schiller, the parties have agreed to convene and hold 2 his Deposition on May 31, 2023, which is the first date he is available in light of his current, busy 3 schedule (which is after the current discovery cut-off date).1 The Parties have also agreed to resume 4 settlement discussions in the interim, and it is possible that this matter could settle within the time- 5 period of the instant stipulated extension. 6 B. Discovery Which Still Needs to Occur. 7 At this time Plaintiff only intends to depose Clark County Manager – Kevin Schiller, a 8 9 percipient witness. 10 C. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery. 11 Discovery Cut-Off Date – The May 8, 2023, discovery cut-off date shall be extended to 12 June 7, 2023, to allow for the Deposition of Clark County Manager – Kevin Schiller. 13 Dispositive Motions – The current June 8, 2023, dispositive motions deadline shall be 14 extended to July 10, 2023.2 15 Pretrial Order – If no dispositive motions are filed, the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed on August 9, 2023 16 thirty (30) days after the date set for the filing of the dispositive motions. In the event dispositive 17 motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days 18 after the decision on the dipositive motions or by further order of the Court. 19 D. Good Cause Supports this Request. 20 When a stipulation requires the modification of the scheduling order, the parties must first 21 satisfy the “good cause” standard established by Rule 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 22 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be 23 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”). The good cause inquiry is focused on 24 the movant’s reasons for seeking to modify the scheduling order and primarily considers the 25 26 1 After discussing Mr. Schiller’s schedule, near-term commitments, conflicts and availability for deposition over the past several weeks, On 5/2/23, Plaintiff served Defendant Clark County with Notice of Kevin Schiller’s Deposition on for the 27 soonest (5/31/23), which is the soonest date for which he is available for Deposition. 1 movant’s diligence. In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2 2013). The key determination is whether the subject deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite 3 the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court considers 4 whether relief from the scheduling order is sought based on the development of matters that could 5 not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule was established. Jackson v. Laureate, 6 Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may also consider other pertinent circumstances, 7 including whether the movant was diligent in seeking modification of the scheduling order once it 8 became apparent that the movant required relief from the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care 9 LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “The diligence obligation is ongoing” such that parties 10 must “diligently attempt to adhere to [the deadlines in the scheduling order] throughout the 11 subsequent course of the litigation.” 12 Here, good cause exists to extend the discovery schedule as requested herein. The parties 13 have acted in good faith to comply with the discovery deadlines and resolve any discovery disputes. 14 Further, the parties remain open to engaging in settlement negotiations in an attempt to resolve this 15 matter. The parties remain optimistic that they may be able to resolve this matter. Accordingly, the 16 parties have agreed to extend the discovery deadlines to allow for the Deposition of Clark County 17 Manager – Kevin Schiller, as well as to allow further settlement negotiations before incurring 18 19 additional expenses. 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 / / / 1 Dated this 5th day of May, 2023. 2 F. TRAVIS BUCHANAN, ESQ., & ASSOC., CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY’S PLLC OFC., CIVIL DIVISION 3 /s/ F. Travis Buchanan /s/ Stephanie A. Mazzei 4 F. Travis Buchanan, Bar No. 9371 Stephanie A. Mazzei, Bar No. 11648 701 East Bridger Ave., Suite 540 500 South Grand Central Pkwy., Ste. 5075 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, NV 89155-2215 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant 6 Karen McDonnell Clark County 7 8 ORDER 9 IT IS SO ORDERED: 10 11 United States District Court/Magistrate Judge 12 5-8-2023 13 Dated: __________________________ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McDonnell v. Clark County Board Of Commissioners (McDonnell v. Clark County Board Of Commissioners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.