Nutsch v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedNovember 14, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01101
StatusUnknown

This text of Nutsch v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Nutsch v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nutsch v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, (D. Nev. 2023).

Opinion

1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 2) |MCLETCHIE LAW 602 South Tenth Street 3 | |Las Vegas, NV 89101 4 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 Fax: (702) 425-8220 5 | |Email: efile@nvlitigation.com ‘ Counsel for Plaintiff Travis Nutsch

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 g | | TRAVIS NUTSCH, an individual, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01101-JCM-VCF 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO |vs EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES 12] | LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE = |DEPARTMENT, a Municipal Corporation; (FIRST REQUEST) OFFICER TIMOTHY NYE, an individual; ag 14| | OFFICER GEORGE AJAM, an individual; 15 OFFICER GENE WOLFANGER, an individual; OFFICER KELLEY FURNAS, 16 | | an individual; OFFICER ISRAEL CRUZ CAMACHO, an individual; OFFICER © |GABRIEL LEA, an individual; DOE 18 OFFICERS III-VII, individuals 19 Defendants. 20 Plaintiff Travis Nutsch, by and through his respective counsel, and Defendants Las 21 | |Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Officer Timothy Nye, Officer George Ajam, and 92 | |Officer Gene Wolfanger, Officer Kelly Furnas, Officer Isrrael Cruz Camacho, and Officer 23 | |Gabriel Lea, (““LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel (collectively 74 | |“the Parties”), hereby stipulate and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 25 | |deadlines an additional sixty (60) days. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and 26 | {not for purposes of delay. This is the first request for an extension in this matter. 27 28

1} /1. STATUS OF DISCOVERY. 2 A. PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY 3 1. Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. |R. Civ. P. 26.1, dated August 28, 2023. 5 2. Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Las Vegas 6 | |Metropolitan Police Department, dated October 12, 2023. 7 B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY 8 1. Defendants’ Initial List of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. 9 | |Civ. P. 26.1 dated August 30, 2023, 10 2. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. 1 The Parties are actively conducting discovery. 12 Plaintiffs need additional time to receive and review documents produced by 13 Defendants; Defendants have requested a two-week extension of the November 14, 2023, 14 | | deadline. 15 The Parties’ primary remaining discovery tasks include: (1) addressing any 16 remaining meet and confer issues and finishing written discovery; (3) scheduling of = 17 depositions; and (3) expert discovery. Further, the Parties intend to save resources by having 18 any expert disclosures follow the completion of fact discovery, to avoid the time and expense 19 | |related to supplementing reports. 20 3. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. 21 This is the first request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. The 22 | |Parties request that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended an 23 | Jadditional sixty (60) days so that the Parties may complete the tasks above. 24 The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend 25 | |a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than twenty- 26] lone (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 27 twenty-one (21) days must be supported by a showing of good cause. Here, almost all of the |deadlines the Parties seek to extend are outside of the twenty-one (21) day window, the

1 | |deadline for initial exert disclosures, however, 1s within the twenty-one (21) day window. 2 | Thus, the Parties must establish that good cause exists to extend these deadlines. Pursuant to 3 | |Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension requested. 4 The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery, but an extension is needed 5 | |to efficiently continue to conduct discovery, analyze the information provided, and manage 6 | |the case. The Parties are resolving issues and meeting and conferring regarding related issues. 7 Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further the resolution 8 | jof this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. 9 There is thus good cause for the extension. ““Good cause to extend a discovery 10 | |deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 11 | Jextension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12 | |108235, 2013 WL 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth 13 | |Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing 14 | |that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the i 15 | |court and the Parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action 16 | |and proceeding”). The Parties have been diligent in litigating this matter. Thus, the standard 17 | |to extend all deadlines is satisfied here. 18 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties thus 19 | |respectfully request an extension of time to extend the discovery in this matter to enable to 20 | |them to conduct necessary discovery in this matter and so that this matter is fairly resolved 21 | jon the merits. 22 4, PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DEADLINES 24 25 Add Parties

28 Disclosures

1 Rebuttal Expert December 11, 2023 February 9, 2024 Disclosures 2 Discovery Cut-Off January 10, 2024 March 11, 2024! 3 February 9, 2024 April 9, 2024 4 Joint Pretrial Order March 11, 2024 April 10, 2024 5 (If dispositive motions are filed, 6 the deadline shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after the 7 decision of the dispositive motions or further order of the 8 Court.) 9 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request 10] |that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended an additional sixty (60) 1 days so that the parties may conduct necessary discovery. 12 e 13

15 16 a5 © 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ———.T— 1 Sixty (60) days from January 10, 2024, is Sunday, February 10, 2024

1 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 DATED this 13 day of November, 2023. DATED this 13 day of November, 2023. 3 MCLETCHIE LAW MARQUIS AURBACH 4 5 By: /s/ Margaret A. McLetchie By: /s/ Nick D. Crosby MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE NICK D. CROSBY 6 Nevada Bar No. 10931 Nevada Bar No. 8996 LEO S. WOLPERT, 10001 Park Run Drive 7 Nevada Bar No. 12658 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 g 602 South Tenth Street Telephone: (702) 382-0711 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 9 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 ncrosby@maclaw.com Fax: (702) 425-8220 Attorney for LVMPD Defendants 10 Email: efile@nvlitigation.com 1 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 ORDER e 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Cn 17 U.S. DISFRIET COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 Dated this 14th day of November 2023. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nutsch v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nutsch-v-las-vegas-metropolitan-police-department-nvd-2023.