1 Marquis Aurbach Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14246 10001 Park Run Drive 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 5 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 canderson@maclaw.com 6 jnichols@maclaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan 7 Police Department, Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Sgt. Alfredo Quintero, and Officer Praveen Raj 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 MICHAEL ROGERS, an individual; NIKITA Case Number: 11 WRIGHT, an individual, 2:22-cv-00867-CDS-DJA
12 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 13 vs. EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES 14 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH LOMBARDO, in (THIRD REQUEST) 15 his official capacity; ALFREDO QUINTERO, individually; PRAVEEN RAJ, 16 individually; PARKER SMITH, individually; TYLER GEORGI, individually; JUSTIN 17 JONSSON, individually; JAMES KILBER, individually DOE OFFICERS V - VI, 18 individually,
19 Defendants.
20 21 Plaintiffs Michael Rogers and Nikita Wright (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their 22 counsel of record, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, 23 Esq., of McLetchie Law, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the 24 “Department” or “LVMPD”), Sheriff Joseph Lombardo (“Lombardo”), Sgt. Alfredo Quintero 25 (“Quintero”), and Officer Praveen Raj (“Raj”), collectively (“LVMPD Defendants”), by and 26 through their counsel of record, Craig R. Anderson, Esq. and Jackie V. Nichols, Esq., of 27 Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling 1 Order deadlines an additional nine (9) months. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith 2 and not for purposes of delay (supplemented information noted in bold-face type). 3 I. STATUS OF DISCOVERY. 4 A. PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY. 5 1. Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 6 26.1(a)(1) dated August 22, 2022. 7 2. Plaintiff Michael Rogers’ Request for Production of Documents to LVMPD - 8 Set One dated December 15, 2022. 9 3. Plaintiff Nikita Wright’s Requests for Production to LVMPD - Set One dated 10 May 16, 2023. 11 4. Michael Rogers’ Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories dated 12 May 31, 2023. 13 5. Nikita Wright’s Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories dated 14 May 31, 2023. 15 6. Michael Rogers’ Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for 16 Production of Documents dated May 31, 2023. 17 7. Nikita Wright’s Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for 18 Production of Documents dated May 31, 2023. 19 8. Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 20 Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated May 31, 2023. 21 B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY. 22 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 23 to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated August 19, 2022. 24 2. LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 25 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated January 17, 2023. 26 3. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Michael Rogers’ Requests for Production - 27 Set One dated January 17, 2023. 1 4. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Nikita Wright dated April 21, 2 2023. 3 5. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff 4 Nikita Wright dated April 21, 2023. 5 6. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Michael Rogers dated April 6 21, 2023. 7 7. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff 8 Michael Rogers dated April 21, 2023. 9 8. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Nikita Wright’s Requests for Production 10 - Set One dated July 17, 2023. 11 9. LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 12 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated July 17, 2023. 13 II. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. 14 The Parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations in an effort to resolve 15 Plaintiffs’ claims. All deadlines were stayed from November 9, 2023, until January 8, 2024, 16 to allow counsel to negotiate. (See ECF No. 46). Further, the Parties are also actively 17 conducting discovery. The Parties will need additional time to propound written discovery, 18 respond to written discovery, and conduct depositions prior to expert disclosures to avoid 19 unnecessary additional costs related to expert disclosures. 20 III. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension 22 requested. This is the second request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. 23 The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a deadline 24 set forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than 21 days before the 25 expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 21 days must be supported 26 by a showing of good cause. All of the deadlines the Parties are requesting be extended expire 27 outside of the 21 day window that necessitates a showing of good cause. 1 The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct 2 discovery. The Parties are working on scheduling the depositions of named parties and 3 witnesses. The Parties previously entered into a stay of the discovery deadlines pending 4 settlement discussions, but to no avail. See ECF Nos. 44 and 46. The Parties contend an 5 extension of discovery deadlines enables them to continue to conduct necessary discovery so 6 that this matter is fairly resolved and give the experts the opportunity to review all discovery 7 produced in this dispute. Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further 8 the resolution of this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. 9 The Parties thus respectfully request an extension of time to extend the discovery in 10 this matter to enable to them to conduct necessary discovery in this matter and so that this 11 matter is fairly resolved on the merits. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if 12 it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa 13 v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108235, 2013 WL 14 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 15 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil 16 Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to 17 secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As 18 the procedural history of this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in litigating this 19 matter. The Parties are continuing to engage in written discovery and have begun coordinating 20 the taking of depositions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Marquis Aurbach Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14246 10001 Park Run Drive 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 5 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 canderson@maclaw.com 6 jnichols@maclaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan 7 Police Department, Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Sgt. Alfredo Quintero, and Officer Praveen Raj 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 MICHAEL ROGERS, an individual; NIKITA Case Number: 11 WRIGHT, an individual, 2:22-cv-00867-CDS-DJA
12 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 13 vs. EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES 14 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH LOMBARDO, in (THIRD REQUEST) 15 his official capacity; ALFREDO QUINTERO, individually; PRAVEEN RAJ, 16 individually; PARKER SMITH, individually; TYLER GEORGI, individually; JUSTIN 17 JONSSON, individually; JAMES KILBER, individually DOE OFFICERS V - VI, 18 individually,
19 Defendants.
20 21 Plaintiffs Michael Rogers and Nikita Wright (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their 22 counsel of record, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, 23 Esq., of McLetchie Law, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the 24 “Department” or “LVMPD”), Sheriff Joseph Lombardo (“Lombardo”), Sgt. Alfredo Quintero 25 (“Quintero”), and Officer Praveen Raj (“Raj”), collectively (“LVMPD Defendants”), by and 26 through their counsel of record, Craig R. Anderson, Esq. and Jackie V. Nichols, Esq., of 27 Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling 1 Order deadlines an additional nine (9) months. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith 2 and not for purposes of delay (supplemented information noted in bold-face type). 3 I. STATUS OF DISCOVERY. 4 A. PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY. 5 1. Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 6 26.1(a)(1) dated August 22, 2022. 7 2. Plaintiff Michael Rogers’ Request for Production of Documents to LVMPD - 8 Set One dated December 15, 2022. 9 3. Plaintiff Nikita Wright’s Requests for Production to LVMPD - Set One dated 10 May 16, 2023. 11 4. Michael Rogers’ Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories dated 12 May 31, 2023. 13 5. Nikita Wright’s Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories dated 14 May 31, 2023. 15 6. Michael Rogers’ Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for 16 Production of Documents dated May 31, 2023. 17 7. Nikita Wright’s Responses to LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for 18 Production of Documents dated May 31, 2023. 19 8. Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 20 Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated May 31, 2023. 21 B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY. 22 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 23 to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated August 19, 2022. 24 2. LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 25 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated January 17, 2023. 26 3. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Michael Rogers’ Requests for Production - 27 Set One dated January 17, 2023. 1 4. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Nikita Wright dated April 21, 2 2023. 3 5. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff 4 Nikita Wright dated April 21, 2023. 5 6. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Michael Rogers dated April 6 21, 2023. 7 7. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff 8 Michael Rogers dated April 21, 2023. 9 8. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Nikita Wright’s Requests for Production 10 - Set One dated July 17, 2023. 11 9. LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 12 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated July 17, 2023. 13 II. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. 14 The Parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations in an effort to resolve 15 Plaintiffs’ claims. All deadlines were stayed from November 9, 2023, until January 8, 2024, 16 to allow counsel to negotiate. (See ECF No. 46). Further, the Parties are also actively 17 conducting discovery. The Parties will need additional time to propound written discovery, 18 respond to written discovery, and conduct depositions prior to expert disclosures to avoid 19 unnecessary additional costs related to expert disclosures. 20 III. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension 22 requested. This is the second request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. 23 The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a deadline 24 set forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than 21 days before the 25 expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 21 days must be supported 26 by a showing of good cause. All of the deadlines the Parties are requesting be extended expire 27 outside of the 21 day window that necessitates a showing of good cause. 1 The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct 2 discovery. The Parties are working on scheduling the depositions of named parties and 3 witnesses. The Parties previously entered into a stay of the discovery deadlines pending 4 settlement discussions, but to no avail. See ECF Nos. 44 and 46. The Parties contend an 5 extension of discovery deadlines enables them to continue to conduct necessary discovery so 6 that this matter is fairly resolved and give the experts the opportunity to review all discovery 7 produced in this dispute. Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further 8 the resolution of this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. 9 The Parties thus respectfully request an extension of time to extend the discovery in 10 this matter to enable to them to conduct necessary discovery in this matter and so that this 11 matter is fairly resolved on the merits. “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if 12 it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa 13 v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108235, 2013 WL 14 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 15 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil 16 Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to 17 secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As 18 the procedural history of this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in litigating this 19 matter. The Parties are continuing to engage in written discovery and have begun coordinating 20 the taking of depositions. 21 Additionally, counsel for the Parties in this matter are litigating several other unrelated 22 matters against each other which are well-advanced and have competing demands, and while 23 competing demands of litigation are merely one of many reasons for the instant request, it 24 should be noted that the other litigation between the same counsel involving similar issues can 25 only benefit from expanded discovery so that in other litigation, similar requests can be 26 expedited because they may have been done at least in part in this case; in this case, it would 27 be a matter of a universal benefit to the ends of justice and future efficiencies. 1 Finally, counsel for Defendants has been ill through December and January, which 2 necessitated several medical appointments and required her to be out of the office. 3 Additionally, counsel for Defendants is anticipated to have surgery on her knee in the near 4 future. Counsel for Plaintiff has also been ill during December and January, including a 5 respiratory illness, and is currently recovering from COVID. These circumstances further 6 compound the need for an extension of the discovery deadlines. 7 Thus, the standards to extend all deadlines, including the expert deadlines, are satisfied 8 here. 9 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DEADLINES 10 Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline 11 Amend Pleadings and Add Parties March 24, 2023 Past Due/Unchanged 12 Initial Expert Disclosures August 22, 2023 August 9, 2024 13
14 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures September 22, 2023 September 9, 2024 15 Discovery Cut-Off October 20, 2023 October 8, 2024 Dispositive Motions November 21, 2023 November 7, 2024 16 Pretrial Order December 22, 2023 December 6, 2024 (If 17 dispositive motions are filed, the deadline shall be 18 suspended until thirty (30) days after the decision of the 19 dispositive motions or further order of the Court.) 20 21 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended additional nine (9) 3] months so that the parties may conduct additional discovery, conduct depositions and 4 Il efficiently litigate the case based on the merits. Dated this 2"4 day of February, 2024. Dated this 2"4 day of February, 2024. 6] MCLETCHIE LAW MARQUIS AURBACH 7 g By: ___/s/N. Pieter QO’ Leary By: ___/s/ Jackie V. Nichols Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 9 Nevada Bar No. 10931 Nevada Bar No. 6882 N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. 10 Nevada Bar No. 15297 Nevada Bar No. 14246 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. 10001 Park Run Drive 11 Nevada Bar No. 12658 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 602 South 10" Street Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Metropolitan Police Department, we 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Rogers Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Sgt. Alfredo and Nikita Wright Quintero, and Officer Praveen Raj 14
15 ORDER > 16 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to remove the stay-designation entered under the 2171 Order at ECF No. 46. Oo aA
19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 DATED: _ 2/5/2024 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 6 of 7
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing STIPULATION AND 3 ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER 4 DEADLINES (THIRD REQUEST) with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District 5 Court by using the court’s CM/ECF system on the 2nd day of February, 2024. 6 I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users 7 and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 8 I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered 9 CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, 10 or have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to 11 the following non-CM/ECF participants: 12 N/A
14 /s/ Rosie Wesp An employee of Marquis Aurbach 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27