Seymour v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Opinion
Nevada Bar No. 5781 Nevada Bar No. 14892 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 5 Fax: (702) 796-7181 landerson@kcnvlaw.com 6 kkalkowski@kcnvlaw.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 DOUGLAS SEYMOUR, Case No. 2:20-cv-00937-RFB-VCF 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE 13 JOHNNY WOODRUFF; and LAS VEGAS (Second Request) METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT’ 14 and JOHN DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, Defendant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 18 (“LVMPD”), Defendant, Johnny Woodruff (“Woodruff”) and Plaintiff, Douglas Seymour 19 (“Seymour”) by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate, agree, and request that this 20 Court extend the dispositive motion deadline from the current date of November 17, 2021 until 21 January 27, 2022 as the parties are actively trying to resolve this matter and have agreed to attend a 22 private Mediation on January 13, 2022. 23 / / / 24 / / / 1 A. Discovery Completed to Date 2 The parties have exchanged their initial Rule 26 Disclosures. Defendant Las Vegas 3 Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) has provided six additional supplemental 4 disclosures; Plaintiff has provided one additional supplemental disclosure; and Woodruff
5 provided a supplemental disclosure. All parties served and responded to various written 6 discovery. LVMPD served various third-party subpoenas which following litigating Motions to 7 Quash filed by Plaintiff, responses have been received and disclosed. 8 The depositions of Woodruff, a third-party, Sgt. Jonathan Robinson and the Plaintiff 9 were taken. An IPE of Plaintiff was conducted. The parties timely disclosed expert reports. 10 B. Discovery Remaining to be Completed 11 No further discovery is needed. 12 C. Reason for Request for Extension of Dispositive Motion Deadline 13 As stated above, the parties have scheduled a private Mediation for January 13, 2022 in the 14 hopes that this matter can reach a global resolution. The parties do not wish to expend additional
15 time and expense in preparing dispositive motions until after the Mediation. 16 D. Proposed Extended Deadline for Dispositive Motions 17 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter an order as follows: 18 (1)Dispositive Motions. 19 The parties request the current deadline of November 17, 2021, be extended to January 27, 20 2022; fourteen (14) days after the Mediation on January 13, 2022. 21 The parties also request that the deadline for any response to any dispositive motion be 22 extended until February 28, 2022; thirty (30) days after dispositive motions are filed. The parties recognize that they are making this request fewer than twenty-one days 23 before the current dispositive motion deadline of November 17, 2021, however the parties 24 1 submit that good cause and excusable neglect exists for the delay. 2 LR 26-3 states in relevant part: 3 A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration 4 of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause. A request made 5 after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of 6 excusable neglect. 7 In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: (1) the reason 8 for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the 9 moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the 10 proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. 11 Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). 12 There is good cause for the requested extension as shown above. The parties have 13 conducted all discovery in this matter and at the conclusion of discovery. As stated in the 14 parties’ previous request to extend the dispositive motion deadline, the parties have been 15 engaged in settlement discussions. The parties determined that a private Mediation may be 16 beneficial to help reach a global resolution. The parties have been reaching out to private 17 Mediators and just retained one and scheduled the private Mediation. 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 1 This request for an extension is made in good faith and joined by all the parties in this 2 ||case. Trial is not yet set in this matter and dispositive motions have not yet been filed. 3 || Accordingly, this extension will not delay this case. Moreover, this Request will allow the 4 || parties to possibly resolve this matter in its entirety. 5 DATED this 8th day of November, 2021. 6 || KAEMPFER CROWELL PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP By: _/s/Lyssa S. Anderson By: _/s/ Peter Goldstein g LYSSA S. ANDERSON Peter Goldstein Nevada Bar No. 5781 Nevada Bar No. 6992 9 Neve □□ BarNe 14890 10161 Park Run Dr., Ste. 150 1980 Festival Plaza Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 10 Suite 650 Attorneys for Plaintiff Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 11 Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 12 Department
14 By: _/s/ Daniel R. McNutt DANIEL R. MCNUTT 15 Nevada Bar No. 7815 MATTHEW C. WOLF 16 Nevada Bar No. 10801 625 South Eighth Street 17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Defendant 18 Officer John Woodruff 20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11-8-2021 23 Dated: 8-20 24 CROWELL Festival Plaza Drive Suite 650
Luisa Cota From: Peter Goldstein
Mine as well. Peter
F PevexGorvsrew PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Tel: (702) 474-6400 Fax: (888) 400-8799
400 Corporate Pointe, Ste. 300 Culver City, CA 90230 Tel: (310)552-2050 Fax: (888) 400-8799
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dan McNutt
DM
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Seymour v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Seymour v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.