Pratt v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00374
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

! || LEILA L. HALE, ESQ. 5 Nevada Bar No. 7368 BRANDON C. VERDE, ESQ. 3 || Nevada Bar No. 14638 HALE INJURY LAW 4 || 1661 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 200 5 Henderson, Nevada 89012 Phone: (702) 736-5800 6 || Fax: (702) 534-4655 bverde@haleinjurylaw.com 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 REGGIE ANTONIO PRATT, an individual, CASE NO: 2:24-cv-00374 12 Plaintiffs,

4 STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) MICHAEL PALMER, individually and in his ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 15 || official capacity; THE UNITED STATES OF DEADLINES AMERICA, a sovereign governmental entity; '6 || UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF FIRST REQUEST 17 || JUSTICE, a governmental agency under the United States; FEDERAL BUREAU OF 18 || INVESTIGATION, a governmental agency under the United States; KEVIN ALEXANDER | HERNANDEZ ARENAS, individually; RAUL 29 |} FERNANDEZ-GARCIA, individually; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I 21 |) through X, inclusive, Defendants. 23 The undersigned, on behalf of Plaintiff, REGGIE ANTONIO PRATT, and Defendants, 24 55 |, KEVIN ALEXANDER HERNANDEZ ARENAS and RAUL FERNANDEZ-GARCIA, hereb 26 || stipulate to extend the remaining deadlines in the scheduling order and discovery plan for one hundred and twenty (120) days for the reasons explained herein, and under Local Rule 6-1(b). 28 1.

| DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 1. The parties have conducted an FRCP 26(f) conference and have served thei respective FRCP 26(a) disclosures;

5 2. Defendants Kevin Alexander Hernandez Arenas and Raul Fernandez-Garcia □□□□ 6 || propounded Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff; 7 3. Plaintiff has responded to Defendants Kevin Alexander Hernandez Arenas an Raul Fernandez-Garcia’s propounded Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; 4. Defendants Kevin Alexander Hernandez Arenas and Raul Fernandez-Garcia □□□□

11 || propounded Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff; 12 5. Plaintiff has responded to Defendants Kevin Alexander Hernandez Arenas an '3 |! Raul Fernandez-Garcia’s propounded Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; z 6. Plaintiff provided executed medical authorization to Defendants; 7. Defendants requested, and obtained, Plaintiff's medical treatment records; 7 8. Deposition of Plaintiff was taken; and 18 Il. DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED A. Deposition of the Defendant United States of America person most knowledgeable; B. Deposition of Defendants Kevin Alexander Hernandez Arenas and Raul Fernandez- Garcia; 23 C. Plaintiff's written discovery requests and responses; D. Defendant United States of America’s written discovery requests and responses; > E. Initial and Rebuttal expert disclosures by all parties; ° F. Depositions of expert witnesses; 7 G. Depositions of Plaintiff's treating physicians; and H. Any other discovery the parties may deem necessary.

| Il. REASON THAT DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED 3 This is the first stipulation for extension of time. The enlargement of time periods, 4 5 including discovery deadlines, is governed by F.R.C.P. 6(b), which states as follows: 6 When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause show 7 may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the perio g enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originall prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after th 9 expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time for taking any action unde 10 Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), 60(b), and 74(a), except to the extent an ul under the conditions stated in them. 12 3 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada include 5 14 || additional provisions relating to the extension or reopening of discovery. Specifically, Local 15 |] Rule 6-1 governs requests for continuances and extensions in general, stating as follows:

'6 (a) Every motion requesting a continuance, extension of time, or order shortening time 7 shall be Filed by the clerk and processed as an expedited matter. Ex parte motions and stipulations shall be governed by LR 6-2. 18 19 (b) Every motion or stipulation to extend time shall inform the court of any previous extensions granted and state the reasons for the extension requested A request made afte 20 the expiration of the specified period shall not be granted unless the moving party, attorney, or other person demonstrates that the failure to act was the resul 21 of excusable neglect. Immediately below the title of such motion or stipulation there shall also be included a statement indicating whether it is the first, second, third, etc., requeste extension, i.€.: 23 24 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS (First Request) 25 (c) The court may set aside any extension obtained in contravention of this rule. 26 (d) A stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file an opposition or final repl to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion, must state in its opening| 27 paragraph the filing date of the motion. 28 Local Rule 26-4 specifically refers to the extension of scheduled deadlines, stating:

1 5 Applications toextendany date set by thediscovery plan, scheduling order, o other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be supported by 3 showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend discover shall be received by the court within twenty (20) days before the discovery cut-off date o 4 any extension thereof. 5 Any motion or stipulation to extend or to reopen discovery shall include: (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; 6 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) The reasons why discovery remaining was not completed within the time limits set b 7 the discovery plan; and g (d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 9 The parties’ failure to timely request an extension of the discovery deadline under Local 10 |! Rule 26-4 results from excusable neglect. Before 1993, a conflict existed between the Courts o 11 Appeals as to the meaning of excusable neglect. In 1993, however, the United States Supreme 12 3 Court resolved this conflict with its decision in Pioneer Investment Services v. Brunswic. 5 14 || Associates, Ltd., 507 U.S 380 (1993). By empowering the courts to accept late filings wher 15 || failing to act resulted from excusable neglect, Congress plainly contemplated that the courts|

|! would be permitted, where appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, o 17 carelessness, and by intervening circumstances beyond the party's control. /d. at 388. Th 18 19 parties’ failure to request an extension ofdiscoverytwenty (20) days befor 20 || the discovery deadline under LR 26-4 constitutes excusable neglect. The discovery deadline 21 || should be extended. 22 Pioneer's liberal definition of excusable neglect is applicable beyond the bankruptc 23 context where it arose. Weinstock v. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, 16 F.3d 501, 503 (2 24 || Cir. 1994). Although the decision in Pioneer arose out of the context of a Bankruptcy Rule 9006 26 a bankruptcy proceeding, the term excusable neglect is used throughout the Federal Rules o 27 || Civil Procedure in several places. For example, under Rule 6(b), where the specified period fo 28 performing an act has elapsed, a district court may enlarge the period and permit the tardy ac

1 ||}where the omission results from excusable neglect. Pioneer. 507 U.S. at 391. There is n ° indication that anything other than the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase was intende by its drafters. /d. Not surprisingly, in applying Rule 6(b), the Courts of Appeals have recognize

5 that excusable neglect may extend to inadvertent delays. /d. at 391-392. 6 Determining whether a party's neglect of a deadline is excusable requires the review o 7 |) several factors. Because Congress has provided no other guideposts for determining what sorts of neglect will be excusable, the determination is equitable, taking account of all relevan circumstances surrounding the party's omission. /d. at 395. The factors include: (1) the danger o

11 || Prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial 12 || proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control '3 |! of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Jd. In Committee for Idaho's High z Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit held that the Supreme Court's analysis of excusable neglect in Pioneer applies to Rule 6(b). Similarly, the Ninth Circui 17 || adopted the Pioneer test for Rule 60(b)(1) cases in Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3 18 |1379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). In Briones, 116 F.3d at 381,the Ninth Circuit noted that Pioneer changed its la on excusable neglect. Bateman vy. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000)|

9 Before Pioneer, the Ninth Circuit had held that ignorance of court rules did no 23 || constitute excusable neglect and had applied a per se rule against the granting of relief when 24 |! party failed to comply with a deadline. Jd. (citing Briones.) After Pioneer, however, the Nint Circuit recognized that the term excusable neglect covers cases of negligence, carelessness, an inadvertent mistake. /d.

The parties have been diligent in moving the case forward and have participated 1 ° discovery. Additional time is needed to propound written discovery requests, and for the depositions of Defendants prior to the April 4, 2024 initial expert disclosure deadline. Plaintiff s

5 counsel has been engaging with settlement discussions with Defense counsel for the Unite 6 || States of America, which there are additional layers to get the appropriate authority to resolve 7 which can take several months. The parties are convinced this case can be resolved prior to retaining experts. The parties have stipulated to extend discovery within 20 days of the initial expe 11 || disclosure date of April 4, 2024. However, all other deadlines are further than 20 days away. The 12 || filing admittedly did not occur twenty (20) days before the deadline as required by LR 26-4. This| case is relatively young. Plaintiff filed her complaint in Nevada State Court on February 23, z 2024, and removal to Federal District Court occurred on August 12, 2024. Under thes 1 circumstances, an extension of time in which to complete discovery will not unduly delay these 17 || proceedings. 18 |) The Cause of the Delay Was Reasonable and the Movant Acted in Good Faith at All Times. Here, both parties are agreeable to the extension and have acted in good faith to reques the same. The parties have no intent, nor reason, to delay the resolution. Both parties eagerl

looked forward to attempting to resolve this matter. 23 So, a review of the foregoing factors reveals that—although the parties’ failure to reques |! an extension within 120 days of the initial expert disclosure deadline may constitute neglect—i is excusable. 26 27 28

IV. ° PROPOSED NEW DISCOVERY DEADLINES 3 Amend Pleadings August 2, 2025 4 Interim Status Report August 2, 2025 5 Discovery Cut-off October 31, 2025 Expert Disclosures August 2, 2025 6 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures September 1, 2025 Dispositive Motions November 29, 2025 7 Joint Pretrial Order December 29, 2025 8 9 || DATED this 12" day of February 2025. DATED this 12" day of February 2025. 10 || HALE INJURY LAW ANDERTON & ASSOCIATES || /s/ Brandon C. Verde /s/ Latisha O’Neal | LEILA L. HALE, ESQ. LATISHA O’NEAL 13 || Nevada Bar No. 7368 Nevada Bar No. 15314 BRANDON C. VERDE, ESQ., LL.M. ANDERTON & ASSOCIATES '* |! Nevada Bar No.: 14638 7350 N. Dobson Rd., Suite 103 15 1661 West Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 200 Scottsdale, AZ 85256 Henderson, Nevada 89012 Attorneys For Defendants, 16 || Attorneys for Plaintiff, KEVIN ALEXANDER HERNANDEZ REGGIE ANTONIO PRATT ARENAS And RAUL FERNANDEZ-GARCIA 18 19 DATED this 12" day of February 2025. * || UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 21 ||} DISTRICT OF NEVADA 22 || /s/ Virginia T. Tomova * TASON M. FRIERSON 24 || Nevada Bar No. 7709 United States Attorney District of Nevada 25 || VIRGINIA T. TOMOVA Nevada Bar Number 12504 Assistant United States Attorney Nevada 27 ||501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 28 || Attorneys for the United States of America

1 ORDER 2 3 || This Court granted the parties’ discovery plan and scheduling order, in which the parties agreed to an extended discovery period of 270 days. ECF No. 23. This Court also 4 || granted the parties’ stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines by 120 days. ECF No. 5 || 27. The parties now request an additional 120 days. Because this Court has already given the parties over a year to conduct discovery, it will GRANT in part and DENY in 6 || part [29] Stipulation for Extension of Time. The Court grants the parties a 60-day extension as follows: g |} Amend Pleadings: May 5, 2025 Discovery Cut-off: August 3, 2025 ? Expert Disclosures: June 3, 2025 19 || Rebuttal Disclosures: July 7, 2025 Dispositive Motions: September 1, 2025 11 |) Joint Pre-trial Order: October 1, 2025 or 30 days after a decision on the dispositive b motion(s) is entered, whichever 1s later. _ 2B > 14 15 IT ISSO ORDERED 16 DATED: 9:31 am, February 13, 2025 17 Gra Les Are fat 18 , BRENDA WEKSLER 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28