1 GRIFFITH H. HAYES 2 Nevada Bar No. 7374 NICHOLAS F. PSYK 3 Nevada Bar No. 15983 Email(s): ghayes@tysonmendes.com 4 npsyk@tysonmendes.com 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 5 Henderson, NV 89052 Telephone: (702) 724-2648 6 Facsimile: (702) 410-7684 Attorneys for Defendant Walmart, Inc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9
10 CHARMAINE GOODMAN MURPHY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01765 individually, 11 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Plaintiff, TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 12 v. (FIRST REQUEST) 13 WALMART, INC., a Foreign Corporation; 14 and DOES 1 through 20; inclusive,
15 Defendants.
16 17 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between the parties and their attorneys 18 of record, that the current discovery deadlines to be extended as indicated on page 3, 19 pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b) and 26-3. 20 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 21 1. The parties have conducted the FRCP 26.1 Early Case Conference. 22 2. Defendant produced its Lists of Witnesses and Documents on December 5, 2024. 23 3. Plaintiff produced her Lists of Witnesses and Documents on August 20, 2024, 24 4. Defendant propounded its First Set of Interrogatories (25 Interrogatories), 25 Requests for Production of Documents (32 Requests), and Requests for Admissions (26 26 Requests) to Plaintiff on December 30, 2024. 27 5. Plaintiff served her responses to First Set of Interrogatories (25 Interrogatories), 28 1 2 Requests) to Plaintiff on February 12, 2025. 3 6. Plaintiff served her First Set of Request for Production of Documents to 4 Defendant (19 total) and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant (20 total) on March 12, 2025. 5 7. Defendant served its Designation of Initial Experts on March 20, 2025. 6 8. Plaintiff served her Designation of Initial Experts on March 20, 2025. 7 9. Rule 35 Examination of Plaintiff. 8 10. Deposition of Plaintiff. 9 II. 10 DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED
11 1. Deposition of Defendant Walmart, Inc. 30(b)(6) witness(es). 12 2. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure. 13 3. Deposition(s) of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. 14 4. Deposition of other percipient witnesses. 15 5. Depositions of experts. 16 6. Issuing subpoenas to additional third-parties, including Plaintiff’s medical 17 providers (if any). 18 7. Additional written discovery (if necessary). 19 8. Any remaining discovery the parties deem relevant and necessary as discovery 20 continues. 21 III. 22 WHY DISCOVERY CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY THE CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER 23 24 A. Good Cause 25 LR 26-3 governs modifications or extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 26 Any stipulation or motion to extend or modify that Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must 27 be made no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline and 28 must comply fully with LR 26-3. If the stipulation is made less than twenty-one (21) days before 1 2 expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that 3 the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. 4 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 5 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 6 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 7 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 The parties agree and submit that the discovery cutoff and rebuttal expert disclosure 9 deadline, cannot and could not have been met despite the exercise of diligence. Good cause 10 exists for the following reasons: Defendant’s counsel received notice the day of the current 11 rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, April 21, 2025, that Defendant’s medical expert, Dr. Rimoldi, 12 would require additional time to prepare a rebuttal expert report for this case. Given the 13 circumstances, Defendant requested if Plaintiff would be amenable to a brief extension of the 14 remaining case deadlines, including the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, to accommodate the 15 production of Dr. Rimoldi’s report. Due to the availability of counsel for the parties, the 16 extension was not able to be agreed upon until after the deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures 17 had passed. Once the extension had been agreed upon, the parties diligently worked to prepare 18 the instant stipulation requesting a brief two week extension of the remaining case deadlines, as 19 well as the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, to ensure that all necessary discovery can be 20 completed. Based on the foregoing, both Plaintiff and Defense counsel are requesting that the 21 scheduling order dates including the rebuttal expert disclosure date be extended by 14 days. 22 B. Excusable Neglect 23 When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has 24 expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co. 25 v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable 26 neglect “determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances 27 surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 28 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Factors courts may consider when evaluating excusable neglect include (1) 1 2 impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay and, (4) whether the movant acted in 3 good faith. Id. The movant bears the burden of establishing sufficient justification for 4 modification of the case management deadlines. See Desio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 5 339 F.R.D 632, 638 (D. Nev. 2021) (citing Singer v. Las Vegas Athl. Clubs, 376 F. Supp. 3d 6 1062, 1077 (D. Nev. 2019)); see also Branch Banking, 871 F.3d at 765 (affirming denial of 7 request to modify case management deadlines because the movants had not established good 8 cause or excusable neglect). Magistrate judges have broad discretion to manage the discovery 9 process “in the interests of dispatch and fairness.” V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 361 10 (D. Nev. 2019); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 Addressing the first factor, the parties are jointly requesting the instant extension. As 12 such, the parties submit that there is no danger of prejudice to either party if the requested 13 extension is granted. 14 Addressing the second factor, the parties acknowledge the Court has broad discretion to 15 manage the discovery process in the interest of dispatch and fairness. Regarding the requested 16 extension, the parties note that discovery has not yet closed, and a trial date has not yet been set 17 for this matter that would need to be continued. See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 18 1225 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting discovery had only recently closed and there was no evidence trial 19 would have been postponed for an inordinate amount of time when finding excusable neglect for 20 an untimely opposition to a motion for summary judgment). As such, although the parties 21 acknowledge the Court is in the best position to manage its schedule, the parties respectfully 22 submit that the requested extension will not result in significant delay or substantial impact on 23 judicial proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 GRIFFITH H. HAYES 2 Nevada Bar No. 7374 NICHOLAS F. PSYK 3 Nevada Bar No. 15983 Email(s): ghayes@tysonmendes.com 4 npsyk@tysonmendes.com 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 5 Henderson, NV 89052 Telephone: (702) 724-2648 6 Facsimile: (702) 410-7684 Attorneys for Defendant Walmart, Inc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9
10 CHARMAINE GOODMAN MURPHY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01765 individually, 11 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Plaintiff, TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 12 v. (FIRST REQUEST) 13 WALMART, INC., a Foreign Corporation; 14 and DOES 1 through 20; inclusive,
15 Defendants.
16 17 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between the parties and their attorneys 18 of record, that the current discovery deadlines to be extended as indicated on page 3, 19 pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b) and 26-3. 20 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 21 1. The parties have conducted the FRCP 26.1 Early Case Conference. 22 2. Defendant produced its Lists of Witnesses and Documents on December 5, 2024. 23 3. Plaintiff produced her Lists of Witnesses and Documents on August 20, 2024, 24 4. Defendant propounded its First Set of Interrogatories (25 Interrogatories), 25 Requests for Production of Documents (32 Requests), and Requests for Admissions (26 26 Requests) to Plaintiff on December 30, 2024. 27 5. Plaintiff served her responses to First Set of Interrogatories (25 Interrogatories), 28 1 2 Requests) to Plaintiff on February 12, 2025. 3 6. Plaintiff served her First Set of Request for Production of Documents to 4 Defendant (19 total) and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant (20 total) on March 12, 2025. 5 7. Defendant served its Designation of Initial Experts on March 20, 2025. 6 8. Plaintiff served her Designation of Initial Experts on March 20, 2025. 7 9. Rule 35 Examination of Plaintiff. 8 10. Deposition of Plaintiff. 9 II. 10 DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED
11 1. Deposition of Defendant Walmart, Inc. 30(b)(6) witness(es). 12 2. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure. 13 3. Deposition(s) of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. 14 4. Deposition of other percipient witnesses. 15 5. Depositions of experts. 16 6. Issuing subpoenas to additional third-parties, including Plaintiff’s medical 17 providers (if any). 18 7. Additional written discovery (if necessary). 19 8. Any remaining discovery the parties deem relevant and necessary as discovery 20 continues. 21 III. 22 WHY DISCOVERY CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY THE CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER 23 24 A. Good Cause 25 LR 26-3 governs modifications or extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 26 Any stipulation or motion to extend or modify that Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must 27 be made no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline and 28 must comply fully with LR 26-3. If the stipulation is made less than twenty-one (21) days before 1 2 expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that 3 the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. 4 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 5 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 6 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 7 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 The parties agree and submit that the discovery cutoff and rebuttal expert disclosure 9 deadline, cannot and could not have been met despite the exercise of diligence. Good cause 10 exists for the following reasons: Defendant’s counsel received notice the day of the current 11 rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, April 21, 2025, that Defendant’s medical expert, Dr. Rimoldi, 12 would require additional time to prepare a rebuttal expert report for this case. Given the 13 circumstances, Defendant requested if Plaintiff would be amenable to a brief extension of the 14 remaining case deadlines, including the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, to accommodate the 15 production of Dr. Rimoldi’s report. Due to the availability of counsel for the parties, the 16 extension was not able to be agreed upon until after the deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures 17 had passed. Once the extension had been agreed upon, the parties diligently worked to prepare 18 the instant stipulation requesting a brief two week extension of the remaining case deadlines, as 19 well as the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, to ensure that all necessary discovery can be 20 completed. Based on the foregoing, both Plaintiff and Defense counsel are requesting that the 21 scheduling order dates including the rebuttal expert disclosure date be extended by 14 days. 22 B. Excusable Neglect 23 When a request for relief from case management deadlines is made after the deadline has 24 expired, an additional showing of excusable neglect must be made. Branch Banking & Trust Co. 25 v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. The excusable 26 neglect “determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances 27 surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 28 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Factors courts may consider when evaluating excusable neglect include (1) 1 2 impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay and, (4) whether the movant acted in 3 good faith. Id. The movant bears the burden of establishing sufficient justification for 4 modification of the case management deadlines. See Desio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 5 339 F.R.D 632, 638 (D. Nev. 2021) (citing Singer v. Las Vegas Athl. Clubs, 376 F. Supp. 3d 6 1062, 1077 (D. Nev. 2019)); see also Branch Banking, 871 F.3d at 765 (affirming denial of 7 request to modify case management deadlines because the movants had not established good 8 cause or excusable neglect). Magistrate judges have broad discretion to manage the discovery 9 process “in the interests of dispatch and fairness.” V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 361 10 (D. Nev. 2019); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 Addressing the first factor, the parties are jointly requesting the instant extension. As 12 such, the parties submit that there is no danger of prejudice to either party if the requested 13 extension is granted. 14 Addressing the second factor, the parties acknowledge the Court has broad discretion to 15 manage the discovery process in the interest of dispatch and fairness. Regarding the requested 16 extension, the parties note that discovery has not yet closed, and a trial date has not yet been set 17 for this matter that would need to be continued. See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 18 1225 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting discovery had only recently closed and there was no evidence trial 19 would have been postponed for an inordinate amount of time when finding excusable neglect for 20 an untimely opposition to a motion for summary judgment). As such, although the parties 21 acknowledge the Court is in the best position to manage its schedule, the parties respectfully 22 submit that the requested extension will not result in significant delay or substantial impact on 23 judicial proceedings. 24 Addressing the third factor, the parties refer to the Court to the above discussion of good 25 cause for the circumstances resulting in the initial requested extension. In addition, with respect 26 to the delay in the parties’ submission of the instant request, the parties submit that the parties 27 experienced a brief delay due to counsel’s availability in agreeing to the extension and preparing 28 the instant stipulation. As such, the parties provide the above circumstances as the reason for not 1 2 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (reversing denial of Rule 60(b) motion where delay was 3 caused by paralegal miscalculating a filing deadline); Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223 (finding a Rule 4 60(b) motion should have been granted where delay caused by attorney needing to recover from 5 jet lag and catch up on his mail for two weeks). 6 Addressing the fourth factor, the parties submit that the parties have acted in good faith in 7 their efforts to resolve the additional time required for preparation of Defendant’s rebuttal expert 8 disclosures. Although the parties acknowledge the instant request is submitted after the rebuttal 9 expert disclosure deadline, the parties submit this delay is not due to the bad faith of any party, or 10 any intent to unnecessarily delay these proceedings. See Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1225 (finding 11 excusable neglect despite a weak reason for delay due to lack of deviousness or willfulness). 12 The parties therefore respectfully submit that excusable neglect is present in the instant 13 circumstance that resulted in the instant stipulation being submitted after the deadline for 14 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures. Based on the good cause and excusable neglect outlined above, 15 both Plaintiff and Defense counsel are requesting that the scheduling order dates including the 16 rebuttal expert disclosure date be extended by about 14 days. 17 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY 18 19 Discovery Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Motion to Amend/Add Parties February 18, 2025 February 18, 2025 20 Initial Expert Disclosures March 20, 2020 March 20, 2025 21 All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 21, 2025 May 6, 2025 Discovery Cut-Off Date May 19, 2025 June 2, 2025 22 Dispositive Motions June 18, 2025 July 2, 2025 Pretrial Order July 18, 2025 August 1, 2025 23
24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 The parties represent this Stipulation is sought in good faith and not interposed for delay 2 || or any other improper purpose. 3 || DATED this 25" day of April, 2025. DATED this 25" day of April, 2025. 4 || RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM TYSON & MENDES LLP /s/ Richard D. Young /s/ Griffith H. Hayes 6 || RICHARD D. YOUNG GRIFFITH H. HAYES Nevada Bar No. 11331 Nevada Bar No. 7374 7 || 801 South Fourth Street NICHOLAS F. PSYK Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Nevada Bar No. 15983 8 || Attorneys for Plaintiff 2835 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 140 Henderson, Nevada 89052 9 Attorneys for Defendant Walmart, Inc. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. LO 12 a en A 13 A If 14 Hopi aximiliay/D uyziier IIT Muted States My ate Judge 15 Date: 4/29/2023 16 17 18 19 20 21
23 24 25 26 27 28