Porretti v. Dzurenda

Opinion

SBN 11192 2 MAKRIS LEGAL SERVICES, LLC 400 S. 4th Street, Suite 500 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 793-4023 4 Facsimile: (702) 793-4023 Email: jason.makris@makrislegal.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff In conjunction with 6 U.S. Dist. Court, District of Nevada Pro Bono Program 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 **** 10 Wayne A. Porretti, Case No. 2:17-cv-01745-RFB-DJA

11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DISCOVERY 12 v. AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT BRIEFING 13 Dzurenda, et al., (FIRST REQUEST) 14 Defendants. 15 Plaintiff, Wayne A. Porretti, by and through counsel, Jason C. Makris, and Defendants, Alberto 16 Buencamino, James Dzurenda, Bob Faulkner, Linda Fox, Rio Manalang, Francis Oakman, Perry Russell, 17 and Brian Williams, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, 18 and Alexander J. Smith, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the deadline 19 for Discovery for thirty (30) days pursuant to LR 26-3 and IA 6-1; and to extend the filing deadline to 20 the Parties’ Summary Judgment Briefs: 21 DISCOVERY COMPLETED 22 To date, the parties in this action have conducted discovery as follows: 23 1. The parties conducted their Rule 26(f) conference via telephone. 24 2. The Parties have served initial disclosures. 25 3. Expert Witness Disclosures and Rebuttal Expert Witnesses. 26 4. Treating Physician Disclosures 27 DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 28 2 Defendants regarding the Police to stop providing Wellbutrin and Seroquel and Plaintiff’s medical 3 treatment. 4 5. Depositions of Named Defendants to be determined upon receipt of document 5 disclosers; 6 6. Depositions of FRCP 30(b)(6) to be determined. 7 REASONS FOR REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE 8 Counsel for both sides have discussed and agree that a stipulation on this matter is necessary for 9 proceedings in this case. LR 26-3 provides that upon a demonstration of excusable neglect upon a 10 showing that there is no danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of delay and its potential 11 impact on the proceedings, the reason for delay, and that the movant has acted in good faith. See 12 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 13 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). 14 On March 30, 2022, this court entered an order allowing limited discovery on the issue of 15 communication between NDOC Defendants regarding their police and treatment of Plaintiff while in 16 custody of the NDOC. ECF 436. During that time, Counsels for Plaintiff and NDOC Defendants 17 have been discussing issues relevant to the litigation in this matter, including discussions regarding the 18 payment of Dr. Roitman’s outstanding fees. NDOC Defendants have complied with this Court’s 19 Orders, and provided payment to Dr. Roitman. Due to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s case load, however, the 20 discovery requested has not been able to be competently completed within the time frame initially 21 granted by this Court due to Counsel’s case load in the Eighth Judicial District Court. 22 Additionally, since this Court’s Order, DAG Alexander Smith, Esq., has returned from leave 23 and is again actively involved in the action. At this point no trial date has been set in this matter. 24 Based upon the above factors, no prejudice will result to NDOC Defendants, as Counsel has stipulated 25 to the extension. Additionally, the potential impact on the requested additional thirty (30) day request 26 for extending discovery is minimal and will not have an impact to any trial date since none has been 27 set. Plaintiff is receiving his mental health medications as previously ordered by this Court and sees 28 Dr. Sussman monthly for continued evaluation of those medications. 1 Finally, Counsel moves for this in good faith as this outstanding discovery is necessary for 2 ||}summary judgment purposes. Therefore, excusable neglect and good cause support extending the 3 || discovery deadline. 4 Additionally, the parties agree to an extension of Summary Judgment deadlines to ensure 5 || completeness of the record before this Court. Therefore, the Parties stipulate to and request this Court 6 || to extend the applicable deadlines as follows: 7 8 NEW DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE: — June 13, 2022 9 Summary Judgement Briefs Due By: July 14, 2022; 10 Response/Opposition Briefs Due By: July 28, 2022; Reply Briefs Due by: August 04, 2022. 12 13 JASON C. MAKRIS, ESQ. By: /s/ Jason C. Makris Date: May 12 , 2022 14 Jason C. Makris (No. 11192) 15 Attorney for Plaintiff 16 AARON D. FORD, ESQ. 17 Nevada Attorney General 18 Alexander J. Smith, ESQ. Deputy Attorney General 19 By: /s/ Alexander J. Smith Date: May 12 , 2022 20 Alexander J. Smith (No. 15484) Deputy Attorney General 21 Attorneys for Defendants 22 23 IT ISSO ORDERED: 24 25 AA<— 26 WARE, II United States District Court 27 DATED this 13th day of May, 2022. 28

2 I hereby certify that on the 12th day of May, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 3 stipulation for stipulation AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DISCOVERY AND 4 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING (FIRST REQUEST) via the United States 5 District Court, District of Nevada’s electronic filing system. Parties registered with this Court’s 6 electronic system will be served electronically.

7 AARON D. FORD, Esq. Nevada Attorney General 8 ALEXANDER J. SMITH, ESQ. Deputy Attorney General 9 10 /s/ Jason Makris 11 An Employee of the Makris Legal Services, LLC

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28