1 SAO Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 13524 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM 3 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 4 Phone: (702) 444-4444 Fax: (702) 444-4455 5 Email: jlee@richardharrislaw.com 6 Attorney for Plaintiff 9 MACK MILLER, an individual; CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 11 vs. EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 12 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, a political subdivision; DOE CLARK COUNTY (Second Request) 13 OFFICERS, in their personal capacities; DOE 14 PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS, in their personal capacities; PREVENTIVE 15 MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; MARCO 16 SOLORIO, individually; LEONARD MORRIS, 17 individually; ROE PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY; DOES 1 through 20; ROE 18 BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 through 20, inclusive 19 jointly and severally, 20 Defendants. CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of 21 State of Nevada, 22 Cross-claimant, 23 vs. FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability 25 company. 26 Cross-defendant, 27 28 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel that the discovery deadlines shall be extended in this matter. I. © DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 2 The parties have participated in the following discovery to date: 3 1. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 4 2. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 5 3. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 6 4. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 7 5. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 8 6. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; 9 7. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 10 8. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Seventh Supplemental disclosures; M1 9. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Eighth Supplemental disclosures; 12 10. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 13 11. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 14 12. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; mn 1S 13. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 16 14. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; “47 15. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 18 16. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplementa 19 disclosures; 20 17. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 21 18. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Preventiv 22 Measures; 23 19. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents t 24 Preventive Measures; 25 20. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Preventive Measures; 26 21. | Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se 27 of Requests for Admissions; 28 22. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se
1 of Requests for Production of Documents; 2 23. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se 3 of Interrogatories; 4 24. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 5 25. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 6 26. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents t 7 Plaintiff; 8 27. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests fo 9 Admissions; 10 28. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests fo 11 Production of Documents; 12 29. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories; 13 30. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 14 31. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; mn 1S 32. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Production of Document = 16 |to Plaintiff: “47 33. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests fo 18 Admissions; 19 34. ‘Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests fo 20 Production of Documents; 21 35. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set o 22 Interrogatories; 23 36. Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Preventive Measures; 24 37. Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 25 38. — Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Preventive Measures; 26 39. ‘Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 27 40. _ Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 28 41. Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County;
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 SAO Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 13524 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM 3 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 4 Phone: (702) 444-4444 Fax: (702) 444-4455 5 Email: jlee@richardharrislaw.com 6 Attorney for Plaintiff 9 MACK MILLER, an individual; CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 11 vs. EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 12 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, a political subdivision; DOE CLARK COUNTY (Second Request) 13 OFFICERS, in their personal capacities; DOE 14 PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS, in their personal capacities; PREVENTIVE 15 MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; MARCO 16 SOLORIO, individually; LEONARD MORRIS, 17 individually; ROE PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY; DOES 1 through 20; ROE 18 BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 through 20, inclusive 19 jointly and severally, 20 Defendants. CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of 21 State of Nevada, 22 Cross-claimant, 23 vs. FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability 25 company. 26 Cross-defendant, 27 28 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel that the discovery deadlines shall be extended in this matter. I. © DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 2 The parties have participated in the following discovery to date: 3 1. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 4 2. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 5 3. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 6 4. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 7 5. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 8 6. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; 9 7. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 10 8. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Seventh Supplemental disclosures; M1 9. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Eighth Supplemental disclosures; 12 10. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 13 11. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 14 12. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; mn 1S 13. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 16 14. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; “47 15. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 18 16. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplementa 19 disclosures; 20 17. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 21 18. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Preventiv 22 Measures; 23 19. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents t 24 Preventive Measures; 25 20. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Preventive Measures; 26 21. | Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se 27 of Requests for Admissions; 28 22. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se
1 of Requests for Production of Documents; 2 23. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se 3 of Interrogatories; 4 24. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 5 25. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 6 26. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents t 7 Plaintiff; 8 27. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests fo 9 Admissions; 10 28. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests fo 11 Production of Documents; 12 29. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories; 13 30. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 14 31. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; mn 1S 32. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Production of Document = 16 |to Plaintiff: “47 33. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests fo 18 Admissions; 19 34. ‘Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests fo 20 Production of Documents; 21 35. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set o 22 Interrogatories; 23 36. Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Preventive Measures; 24 37. Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 25 38. — Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Preventive Measures; 26 39. ‘Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 27 40. _ Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 28 41. Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County;
42. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests fo 2 Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 3 43. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories t 4 Defendant Clark County; 5 44. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests fo 6 Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 7 45. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests fo 8 Production to Defendant Clark County; 9 46. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiffs First Set o 10 Interrogatories and Request for Production; and 11 TI, = DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 12 1. Deposition of Plaintiff (currently scheduled for February 21, 2024); 13 2. Deposition of Kate Murray (currently scheduled for February 15, 2024); 14 3. Deposition of Brian Cooperman (currently scheduled for February 15, 2024); 4. Deposition of Elando Johnson (currently scheduled for February 15, 2024); 16 5. Deposition of newly added Defendant Marco Solorio; “47 6. Deposition of newly added Defendant Leonard Morris; 18 7. Deposition of David Sutton (current or former employee of Defendant Preventative 19 Measures); 20 8. Depositions of other fact witnesses present at the County Commission meetin during the subject incident; 22 9. Supplemental FRCP 26 disclosures; 23 10. — Expert disclosures; 24 11. Deposition of parties’ treating physicians and/or experts; 25 12. Any additional discovery that 1s necessary as the parties proceed through discovery. 26 TII. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY NOT COMPLETED WITHIN TIME SET By DISCOVERY PLAN 27 A motion to extend deadlines articulated in the court’s scheduling order must be supporte 28 by a showing of good cause. See Local Rule 26-3; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
1 1975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause to extend a deadline exists if it cannot reasonabl 2 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In the instan 3 matter, all parties have diligently attempted to comply with the Court’s scheduling order 4 however, the parties have determined they will be unable to obtain unable to obtain and produc 5 key evidence related to the incident and alleged damages, which then deprives the parties and thei 6 respective experts of access to all evidence to formulate their opinions, complete their evaluation 7 and prepare their reports accordingly, as well as impairs counsels ability to reach a prope 8 determination as to further discovery needed. A few procedural issues have been pending that hav 9 influenced the parties’ ability to conduct the necessary discovery in this matter: 10 1. Mr. Miller was recently incarcerated and is currently an inmate at Southern Dese 11 Correctional Center. On October 2, 2023, Defendant Clark County filed a motion for leave to tak 12 Mr. Miller’s deposition. See ECF Doc. 14. Plaintiffs counsel filed a notice of non-opposition o 13 October 18, 2023. See ECF Doc. 24. On January 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Clar 14 County’s Motion to take Plaintiffs deposition. See ECF Doc. 33. The parties have alread = |coordinated with Southern Desert Correctional Center to conduct Plaintiff’s in-perso 16 deposition on February 21, 2024. “47 2. On October 10, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Mr. Miller’s request to amen 18 his complaint to add Defendants Marco Solorio and Leonard Morris. See ECF Doc. 15. Mr. Mille 19 subsequently filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) the following day. See ECF Doe. 17. 20 Service of the first amended complaint and summonses has been complete. Defendant Solorio an 21 Morris recently filed an answer to the FAC on January 11, 2024. See ECF Doc. 35 and 36. 22 3. On October 16, 2023, Defendant Clark County moved to amend the Crossclaim that 1 23 asserted against Defendant Preventative Measures. See ECF Doc. 19. On January 2, 2024, th 24 Court also granted Defendant Clark County’s motion to amend the cross claim that i asserted against Defendant Preventative Measures. See ECF Doc. 33. Defendant/Cros 26 claimant Clark County subsequently filed its amended cross claim on January 10, 2024. Se 27 ECF Doc. 34. Defendant/Cross defendant Preventative Measures has yet to respon 28 Defendant/Cross claimant Clark County’s amended cross claim.
l 4. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff conferred with counsel for the Defendants via emai 2 Jabout the deposition availability of the following current or former employees of th 3 Defendants: Elando Johnson (Clark County employee), Katie Murray (Clark Count 4 employee), Brian Copperman (Clark County employee), Jon Kitchen (Preventativ 5 Measures employee), and David Sutton (Preventative Measures employee). Since Plaintiff” 6 inquiry regarding these depositions, Defense counsel has diligently attempted to locate 7 coordinate the availability of these current/former employees. Recently, the parties were abl 8 to set the depositions Elando Johnson (Clark County employee), Katie Murray (Clar 9 County employee), Brian Copperman (Clark County employee) — which are all schedule 10 for February 15, 2024. The parties are still trying to coordinate the deposition availabilit 11 Jon Kitchen (Preventative Measures employee), David Sutton (Preventative Measure 12 employee) along with the newly added defendants, Marco Solorio and Leonard Morris, 13 however, with little success. 14 5. Lastly, counsel for Defendant Preventative Measures has a firm trial settin = |through mid-February 2024. 16 In sum, the parties cannot meet the expert deadline and complete discovery within th current dates due to the reasons above. The parties believe that the depositions of Mr. Miller an 18 the current and former employees of Clark County and Preventative Measures are critical to th 19 opinions of the parties’ liability experts in this matter and, out of an abundance of caution, th 20 parties seek the requested extension to ensure that there is sufficient time to locate thes 21 employees, set their respective depositions, and to allow the parties’ expert witnesses to a fai 22 opportunity to consider these individuals’ testimony so that they can formulating their expe 23 opinions. Equally important, the parties are also engaging in attempts to resolve this matter befor 24 expending more time and resources on discovery. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request tha 25 the discovery deadlines in this matter be extended by an additional ninety (90) days. requeste 26 extension will ensure all parties have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claims and defense 27 Jon the merits. Therefore, and as set forth below, due diligence and good cause can be shown t 28 allow the Court, in its discretion, to extend the remaining deadlines as requested.
1 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 2 Based on the foregoing, the proposed schedule for completing discovery is as follows: 3 Discovery Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline 4 Motion to Amend/Add Parties Plaintiff's Initial Expert 02.12.2024 05.13.2024 5 Disclosures All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 03.12.2024 06.10.2024 6 Discovery Cut-Off Date 04.11.2024 07.10.2024 7 05.13.2024 08.12.2024 8 Dated this 29 day of January, 2024. Dated this 29" day of January, 2024. ATTORNEY 10 /s/ Jonathan B. Lee /s/ Joel K. Browning 11 1) Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. Joel K. Browning, Esq. Nevada Bar Number 13524 Nevada Bar No. 14489 13. 801 South Fourth Street 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Suite 5075 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89155 14 ati Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant, Clark County . Dated this 29" day of January, 2024. = 16 | TYSON & MENDES on /s/ Russell D. Christian 18 Russell D. Christian, Esq. 19 Nevada Bar No. 11785 2835 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 140 20 Henderson, Nevada 89052 5, | Attorneys for Defendant, Preventive Measures Security Firm, LLC ORDER 23 ITIS SO ORDERED subject to the following modification. The parties’ proposed schedule fails to include a deadline for filing their joint pretrial order. Accordingly, the deadline to file the Joint Pretrial Order is September 11, 2024. If dispositive motions a5 | are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order. 26 », | DATED this 31st day of January 2024. \) O x A DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE