PATRICIA JANCATERINO v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF LAS VEGAS, LLC

Opinion

1 Wendy M. Krincek, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6417 2 Diana G. Dickinson, Esq. Nevada Bar No.13477 8474 Rozita Lee Avenue 4 Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89113.4770 5 Telephone: 702.862.8800 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 6 wkrincek@littler.com ddickinson@littler.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant HOSPITAL OF LAS VEGAS, LLC 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 PATRICIA JANCATERINO, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-00157-ART-DJA 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 13 v. (THIRD REQUEST) HOSPITAL OF LAS VEGAS, LLC, a Delaware 15 limited liability company, 16 Defendant. 17 Plaintiff Patricia Jancaterino (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record, Greenberg 18 Gross LLP, and Defendant Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Las Vegas, LLC 19 (“Defendant”) by and through its counsel of record, Littler Mendelson P.C., hereby stipulate and agree 20 to extend the unexpired discovery deadlines for sixty days (60). 21 This is the parties’ third request for an extension to the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 22 ECF No. 23. The requested extension is sought in good faith and not for purposes of undue delay. 23 This request is submitted before the expiration of the subject deadlines. 24 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED 25 To date, the parties have exchanged the following written discovery and disclosures: 26 • Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(a) was 27 served on May 28, 2025; 28 1 • Defendant’s Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(a) was served on May 28, 2025; 2 • Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to 3 Plaintiff were served on May 28, 2025; 4 • Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for 5 Production of Documents to Defendant were served on May 29, 2025; 6 • Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Document were served on July 18, 2025; 7 8 • Plaintiff’s First Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on July 18, 2025; 9 • Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for 10 Admission, and Requests for Production of Document were served on July 21, 2025; 11 • Defendant’s First Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on July 21, 2025; 12 13 • Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Document were served on October 30, 2025; 14 • Plaintiff’s Second Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses 15 Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on October 30, 2025; 16 • Defendant’s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and 17 Requests for Production of Document were served on October 30, 2025; 18 • Defendant’s Second Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on October 30, 2025; 19 • Plaintiff’s Third Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses 20 Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on October 31, 2025; 21 • Plaintiff’s Initial Designation of Expert Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2) was 22 served on November 10, 2025; 23 • Plaintiff’s Fourth Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on November 13, 2025; 24 • Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant were 25 served on November 13, 2025; 26 • Defendant’s Third Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses 27 Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on December 9, 2025; 28 • Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of 1 Documents were served on December 22, 2025; 2 • Defendant’s Fourth Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on December 22, 2025; 3 4 • Plaintiff’s Fifth Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on January 16, 2026; 5 • Plaintiff’s First Supplement to Initial Designation of Expert Witnesses Pursuant to 6 FRCP 26(a)(2) was served on January 16, 2026; 7 • Plaintiff’s Sixth Supplement to Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses 8 Pursuant to FRCP 26(e) was served on February 2, 2026; 9 • Plaintiff’s Second Supplement to Initial Designation of Expert Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2) was served on February 2, 2026; 10 11 Plaintiff has identified 31 witnesses, 1 retained expert, 9 non-retained experts, and has 12 produced 1,343 pages of documents. Defendant has identified 5 witnesses and has produced 2,172 13 pages of documents. Defendant has also served 10 third-party subpoenas. 14 On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff issued noticed depositions of three witnesses: (1) Tij von Nieda 15 for November 13, 2025; (2) Chanda Kent for November 21, 2025; and (3) Melanie Yogaratnam for 16 December 12, 2025. Plaintiff also served subpoenas for each of these depositions that include a 17 demand for documents, which included the text messages and communications from the witnesses 18 with employees of Defendant relating to Plaintiff. These subpoenas were currently the subject of a 19 meet and confer letter issued by Defendant on October 31, 2025. Plaintiff postponed the deposition 20 of Mr. von Nieda due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s illness. The parties met and conferred on November 18, 21 2025, and agreed to postpone the deposition of Ms. Kent until January to allow the parties time to 22 complete meet and confer discussions on the subpoena issue. A separate issue arose and the deposition 23 of Ms. Yogaratnam also had to be rescheduled. 25 Plaintiff has set the following depositions: (1) Tij von Nieda for February 17, 2026; (2) 26 Melanie Yogaratnam for March 4, 2026; and (3) Chanda Kent for March 10, 2026. Plaintiff also 27 intends to issue third-party subpoenas and conduct depositions of other critical fact witnesses 28 (supervisors, decision makers, percipient witnesses) as well as corporate representatives. Plaintiff may 1 need to conduct additional written discovery following depositions, and may issue additional 2 subpoenas to third-parties based upon information learned in those depositions. 3 Defendant has issued ten third-party subpoenas and is waiting to receive all of the responses. 4 Defendant plans to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition and take the depositions of percipient witnesses. 5 Defendant may conduct additional written discovery following said depositions, and may issue 6 additional subpoenas to third-parties based upon information learned in those depositions. 7 Plaintiff identified 10 treating providers in her Initial Designation Expert Witnesses and this 8 disclosure is currently the subject of a meet and confer letter dated January 6, 2026. The parties 9 participated in a meet and confer conference on January 28, 2026, and Plaintiff’s counsel stated she 10 would respond by close of business on Monday, February 2, 2026, as to whether Plaintiff intends to 11 provide any additional supplementation. On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff produced a Second 12 Supplement to Initial Designation of Expert Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2). 13 Defendant has also requested that Plaintiff stipulate to a Rule 35 Independent Medical 14 Examination, and is in the process of meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding 15 whether Plaintiff will stipulate to the examination and if so, the parameters of the investigation. 16 Plaintiff also started the meet and confer process for Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s 17 Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents. 19 This extension is necessary to allow Defendant sufficient time to complete its rebuttal expert 20 reports and for Defendants to meet and confer with Plaintiff on her Initial Designation Expert 21 Witnesses. Specifically, Defendant just received Plaintiff’s Second Supplement to Initial Designation 22 of Expert Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2) and needs to review to determine if it addresses the 23 issues identified in Defendant’s meet and confer letter. Defendant contends that these issues prevent 24 the Rule 35 Independent Medical Evaluation expert from knowing the facts and opinions of Plaintiff’s 25 treating physicians that should be evaluated. Once this issue is resolved, Defendant’s identified Rule 26 35 Independent Medical Evaluation expert will need time to evaluate Plaintiff and prepare his report. 27 The parties believe that, absent any unforeseen circumstances, all necessary discovery can be 28 accomplished by the requested extended deadline. Good cause exists to extend all deadlines in order 1 to permit the parties to achieve their respective stated discovery goals. 2 When a stipulation requires the modification of the scheduling order, the parties must first 3 satisfy the “good cause” standard established by Rule 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 4 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified 5 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”). The good cause inquiry is focused on the movant’s 6 reasons for seeking to modify the scheduling order and primarily considers the movant’s diligence. In 7 re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). The key 8 determination is whether the subject deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 9 party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court considers whether relief from the 10 scheduling order is sought based on the development of matters that could not have been reasonably 11 anticipated at the time the schedule was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 12 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may also consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the 13 movant was diligent in seeking modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that the 14 movant required relief from the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 15 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “The diligence obligation is ongoing” such that parties must “diligently attempt to 16 adhere to [the deadlines in the scheduling order] throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.” 17 Id. 18 Good cause supports the parties’ request to extend the Discovery Cut-Off, Rebuttal Expert 19 Disclosures, Dispositive Motions, and Pretrial Order Deadlines. First, the parties have been diligent 20 in their efforts to conduct discovery within the current discovery deadlines by conducting written 21 discovery to obtain relevant evidence prior to depositions. Second, good cause exists to grant an 22 extension to the discovery deadlines to allow Defendant additional time to potentially retain and 23 disclose a rebuttal expert after the potential issues with Plaintiff’s ten experts have been resolved. 24 Third, good cause exists to grant an extension to the deadline to conduct discovery to allow the parties 25 time to conduct the depositions of the Plaintiff, percipient witnesses, corporate representatives, and 26 potential third-party deponents. The parties therefore submit that these circumstances satisfy the 27 required good cause in extending the deadlines referenced below. 28 2 1. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 3 The parties’ current deadline for completing rebuttal experts is February 10, 2026. The parties 4 request that the Court extend that deadline to April 13, 2026.1 5 2. Discovery Cut-Off Deadline 6 The parties’ current deadline for completing discovery is March 10, 2026. The parties request 7 that the Court extend that deadline to May 11, 2026.2 8 3. Dispositive Motions Deadline 9 The parties’ current deadline for filing dispositive motions is April 10, 2026. The parties request 10 that the Court extend that deadline to June 9, 2026. 11 4. Joint Pretrial Order Deadline 12 The parties’ current deadline for filing the Joint Pretrial Order is May 11, 2026. The parties 13 request that the Court extend that deadline to July 10, 2026. In the event dispositive motions are filed, 14 the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after the Court enters 15 a ruling on the dispositive motions or otherwise by further order of the Court. 16 5. Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 17 In accordance with Local Rule 26-3, any stipulation or motion for modification or extension of 18 this discovery plan and scheduling order must be made at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the 19 expiration of the subject deadline. 20 Accordingly, the parties stipulate, subject to approval of this Court, to the following new proposed 21 deadlines: 22 Current Deadline Revised Deadline 23 Rebuttal Experts February 10, 2026 April 13, 2026 24 Discovery Cut-Off March 10, 2026 May 11, 2026 25 Dispositive Motions April 10, 2026 June 9, 2026 26 27 28 1 Deadline lands on Saturday moved to Monday. l Joint Pretrial Order May 11, 2026 July 10, 2026 2 3 4 The instant request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. > | Dated: February 3, 2026 Dated: February 3, 2026 6 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, 7 8 /s/ Marian L. Massey /s/ Diana G. Dickinson Jemma E. Dunn, Esq. Wendy M. Krincek, Esq. g | Matthew T. Hale, Esq. Diana G. Dickinson, Esq. Marian L. Massey, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 190 | GREENBERG GROSS, LLP Attorneys for Defendant 11 | Attorneys for Plaintiff ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION PATRICIA JANCATERINO HOSPITAL OF LAS VEGAS, LLC 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED: 14 . 15 pO UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MENDELSON, ta Lee Avenue