Polanco v. Kanis

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02184
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Jay J. Schuttert, Esq. (SBN 8656) David W. Gutke, Esq. (SBN 9820) 2 Brennen D Marshall, Esq. (SBN 16578) 3 EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300 4 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (702) 805-0290 5 Facsimile: (702) 805-0291 jschuttert@efsmmlaw.com 6 dgutke@efsmmlaw.com 7 bmarshall@efsmmlaw.com

8 Attorneys for Defendant Janna Kanis 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA 11 JORGE POLANCO, individually, Case No. 2:24−cv−02184−APG−NJK 12 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND CERTAIN DEADLINES 13 v. IN DISCOVERY SCHEDULING ORDER 14 JANNA KANIS, individually; DOES 1 through (FIRST REQUEST) 15 10, inclusive; and ROE ENTITIES 11 through 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff Jorge Polanco, through his 19 attorney of record, Joshua L. Benson of Benson Allred Injury Law, and Defendant Janna Kanis, 20 through her attorney of record, David W. Gutke of Evans Fears Schuttert McNulty Mickus, and 21 pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-4, that certain deadlines in the Discovery Scheduling Order [ECF 22 No. 15] be continued by sixty (60) days as detailed herein. This is the Parties’ first request to extend 23 any deadlines in the Discovery Scheduling Order. 24 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 25 1. Plaintiff served his initial disclosures on January 6, 2025; 26 2. Defendant served her initial disclosures on January 6, 2025; 27 3. Plaintiff served his first supplement to initial disclosures on January 15, 2025; 28 1 4. Plaintiff executed medical record releases provided by Defendant on January 21, 2 2025; 3 5. Defendant sent out subpoenas duces tecum to twenty-three (23) known medical 4 providers of Plaintiff for expedited service on January 23, 2025. To date, Defendant 5 has received records back from 10 of the 23 providers subpoenaed; 6 6. Plaintiff served his second supplement to initial disclosures on February 7, 2025; 7 7. Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s first set of interrogatories on February 7, 2025; 8 8. Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s first set of requests for production on February 9 7, 2025; and 10 9. Defendant served her first supplement to initial disclosures on February 14, 2025. 11 II. DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED 12 1. Additional subpoenas for records as necessary; 13 2. Discovery regarding prior automobile accident; 14 3. Supplemental productions of documents by all parties; 15 4. Follow-up on written discovery requests and responses; 16 5. Depositions of parties and non-parties, including coordination of foreign country 17 deposition of Defendant; 18 6. Disclosure of initial and rebuttal expert witnesses; 19 7. Depositions of experts as necessary; and 20 8. Depositions of treating physicians as necessary. 21 III. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY CANNOT BE COMPLETED AND GOOD 22 CAUSE FOR A DISCOVERY EXTENSION 23 Good cause exists to extend discovery deadlines if they “cannot reasonably be met despite 24 the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 25 609 (9th Cir. 1992). As detailed above, the parties have been working diligently to complete 26 discovery in this case, including immediately gathering medical records and propounding written 27 discovery. Notably, however, only 10 of the 23 providers subpoenaed have provided records to 28 date. Further, the parties’ schedules and delay in gathering medical records have delayed Plaintiff’s 1 || deposition from being conducted yet. Despite the parties’ best efforts, additional time is necessary 2 || to compile the necessary medical and initial discovery to provide to medical expert(s) in advance 3 || of the upcoming initial expert disclosure deadline. As such, Plaintiff and Defendant agree to a 4 || proposed extension of the upcoming discovery plan deadlines by 60 days. The parties additionally 5 || agree to extend the pretrial order deadline by 60 days to accommodate the proposed new case 6 || management deadlines. Counsel for the parties have been diligently working together to prepare 7 || this stipulation and obtain an extension of these case management deadlines. Accordingly, no party 8 || 1s prejudiced by the additional time necessary to conduct the remaining discovery. The foregoing 9 || circumstances constitute good cause to extend the current case management deadlines, and the 10 || parties jointly and in good faith request that this Court enter an Order extending the scheduling 11 || deadlines in accordance with their stipulation. There is no trial date set in this case. 12 IV. PROPOSED REVISED DISCOVERY PLAN 13 The parties hereby stipulate to and propose the following amendments to the current 14 || scheduling deadlines: 15 Current Deadline Proposed Deadline 16 Final date to amend pleadings or add parties: February 19,2025 N/A Initial expert disclosures: March 21, 2025 May 20, 2025 Rebuttal expert disclosures: April 21, 2025 June 20, 2025 9 Discovery cut off: May 20, 2025 July 21, 2025 Dispositive motions: June 20, 2025 August 19 2025 Pre-Trial Order: July 21, 2025 September 19, 2025 No trial date has been set. 23 DA /// 95 /// 26 /// 97 /// 08 ///

_2.

1 || Polanco v. Kanis Case No. 2:24—cv—02184-APG-NJK 2 || Joint Stipulation and Order to Extend Certain Deadlines in Discovery Scheduling Order (First Request) 3 ‘ EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT

6 /s/ David W_ Gutke Jay J. Schuttert, Esq. (SBN 8656) 7 David W. Gutke, Esq. (SBN 9820) g Brennen D Marshall, Esq. (SBN 16578) 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300 9 Las Vegas, NV 89119 10 Attorneys for Defendant Janna Kanis 11 12 /s/ Joshua L. Benson Joshua L. Benson, Esq. 13 Nevada Bar No. 10514 BENSON ALLRED INJURY LAW 14 333 N. Rancho Dr., Ste 420 15 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 18 19 Dated: February 20, 2025 IT ISSO ORDERED 20

23 UNITED S lA TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 □

25 26 27 28

_A.