1 JEMMA E. DUNN Nevada Bar No. 16229 2 MATTHEW T. HALE Nevada Bar No. 16880 3 MICHAEL A. BURNETTE 4 Nevada Bar No. 16210 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 5 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 730 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 6 Telephone: (702) 777-0888 Facsimile: (702) 777-0801 7 JDunn@GGTrialLaw.com 8 MHale@GGTrialLaw.com MBurnette@GGTrialLaw.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 SHAWNICE CABRAL, an individual, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00860-MMD-EJY 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND 16 DISCOVERY DEADLINES V. 17 (FIRST REQUEST) 18 FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL, NEVADA, LLC dba FIRST SERVICE RESIDENTIAL 19 NEVADA, a Delaware limited-liability company, 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff Shawnice Cabral ("Plaintiff"), by and through her counsel of record, Greenberg 25 Gross LLP, and Defendant FirstService Residential, Nevada, LLC dba First Service Residential 26 Nevada ("Defendant") by and through its counsel of record, King Scow Koch Durham LLC, hereby 27 stipulate and agree to extend the unexpired discovery deadlines for ninety days (90). This is the 1 A. Discovery Completed to Date. 2 To date, the parties have exchanged initial disclosures of documents and witnesses pursuant 3 to FRCP 26(a)(1). Plaintiff served her Initial Disclosures on July 10, 2025, and Defendant served 4 its Initial Disclosures on July 16, 2025. Plaintiff served its First Supplemental Disclosures on August 5 27, 2025, and its Second Supplemental Disclosures on October 20, 2025. Defendant served its 6 Second Supplemental Disclosures on October 20, 2025. 7 The parties have also exchanged written discovery. Plaintiff served its First Set of Requests 8 for Production of Documents on Defendant on July 10, 2025, to which Defendant responded on 9 August 12, 2025. Plaintiff served her First Set of Interrogatories on Defendant on September 4, 10 2025. Plaintiff also served her Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant 11 on September 4, 2025. Defendant served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on 12 Plaintiff on September 6, 2025, to which Plaintiff responded on October 20, 2025. Defendant 13 respectively served its responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories on October 20, 2025. 14 In addition to party discovery, Plaintiff has pursued third-party discovery. On June 25, 2025, 15 Plaintiff issued a subpoena to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission ("NERC") for its investigation 16 file related to Plaintiff's charge of discrimination. NERC produced responsive documents in August 17 2025 (bates-numbered CABRAL-0000330 through CABRAL-0000715). On September 4, 2025, 18 Plaintiff noticed a subpoena to The Hartford for production on October 6, 2025, seeking documents 19 related to Plaintiff's disability claims and appeals. 20 B. Discovery Which Still Needs to Occur. 21 Defendant intends to depose Plaintiff. Plaintiff intends to take an FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition 22 of Defendant regarding Defendant's policies, procedures, employment practices, FMLA 23 administration, disability accommodation processes, and the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's 24 employment and termination. Plaintiff also intends to depose Defendant's employees, including 25 Christine Pacquing (Plaintiff's supervisor), Chona Vallejo (Human Resources Manager), Jennifer 26 Severs (Corporate Human Resources Manager), and Miriam Rodriguez (former Payroll Analyst). 27 C. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery. 1 ninety (91) days to Monday, March 16, 2026 (as the 90th day lands on a non-judicial date, Sunday 2 March 15, 2026). 3 Dispositive Motions - The January 14, 2026, dispositive motions deadline shall be extended 4 to Wednesday, April 15, 2026, which is thirty (30) days after the discovery deadline. 5 Pretrial Order - If no dispositive motions are filed, the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed 6 thirty (30) days after the date set for the filing of the dispositive motions, which is Friday, May 15, 7 2026. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be 8 suspended until thirty (30) days after the decision on the dispositive motions or by further order of 9 the Court. 10 D. Good Cause Supports the Request to Extend the Deadlines as Set Forth Herein. 11 When a stipulation requires the modification of the scheduling order, the parties must first 12 satisfy the "good cause" standard established by Rule 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 13 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ("A schedule may be 14 modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent"). The good cause inquiry is focused on 15 the movant's reasons for seeking to modify the scheduling order and primarily considers the 16 movant's diligence. In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 17 2013). The key determination is whether the subject deadline "cannot reasonably be met despite the 18 diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court considers whether 19 relief from the scheduling order is sought based on the development of matters that could not have 20 been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 21 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may also consider other pertinent circumstances, including 22 whether the movant was diligent in seeking modification of the scheduling order once it became 23 apparent that the movant required relief from the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 24 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). "The diligence obligation is ongoing" such that parties must 25 "diligently attempt to adhere to [the deadlines in the scheduling order] throughout the subsequent 26 course of the litigation." Id. 27 Good cause supports the parties' request to extend the Discovery Cut-Off, Dispositive 1 between one another following the Early Neutral Evaluation scheduled for August 15, 2025, which 2 was vacated due to a significant disparity in settlement positions. [ECF No. 21]. The parties 3 subsequently stipulated to a settlement conference, which has been scheduled for December 15, 4 2025, the same date as the current discovery deadline. [ECF No. 13; ECF Nos. 29-30]. The parties 5 have been diligently pursuing discovery while simultaneously focusing their resources on settlement 6 efforts, which may obviate the need for extensive litigation. 7 The parties have diligently exchanged initial disclosures, supplemental disclosures, multiple 8 sets of written discovery, and substantial document productions totaling over 1,300 pages. The 9 parties have also pursued third-party subpoenas, including from NERC and The Hartford. However, 10 substantial discovery remains, including numerous fact witness depositions, medical provider 11 depositions, and completion of third-party discovery. The volume of remaining discovery cannot 12 reasonably be completed by December 15, 2025, particularly given the holiday period and the 13 settlement conference scheduled for that date. The parties are seeking this extension promptly upon 14 recognizing that the deadline cannot be met, demonstrating the ongoing diligence in conducting 15 discovery in this case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 JEMMA E. DUNN Nevada Bar No. 16229 2 MATTHEW T. HALE Nevada Bar No. 16880 3 MICHAEL A. BURNETTE 4 Nevada Bar No. 16210 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 5 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 730 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 6 Telephone: (702) 777-0888 Facsimile: (702) 777-0801 7 JDunn@GGTrialLaw.com 8 MHale@GGTrialLaw.com MBurnette@GGTrialLaw.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 SHAWNICE CABRAL, an individual, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00860-MMD-EJY 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND 16 DISCOVERY DEADLINES V. 17 (FIRST REQUEST) 18 FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL, NEVADA, LLC dba FIRST SERVICE RESIDENTIAL 19 NEVADA, a Delaware limited-liability company, 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff Shawnice Cabral ("Plaintiff"), by and through her counsel of record, Greenberg 25 Gross LLP, and Defendant FirstService Residential, Nevada, LLC dba First Service Residential 26 Nevada ("Defendant") by and through its counsel of record, King Scow Koch Durham LLC, hereby 27 stipulate and agree to extend the unexpired discovery deadlines for ninety days (90). This is the 1 A. Discovery Completed to Date. 2 To date, the parties have exchanged initial disclosures of documents and witnesses pursuant 3 to FRCP 26(a)(1). Plaintiff served her Initial Disclosures on July 10, 2025, and Defendant served 4 its Initial Disclosures on July 16, 2025. Plaintiff served its First Supplemental Disclosures on August 5 27, 2025, and its Second Supplemental Disclosures on October 20, 2025. Defendant served its 6 Second Supplemental Disclosures on October 20, 2025. 7 The parties have also exchanged written discovery. Plaintiff served its First Set of Requests 8 for Production of Documents on Defendant on July 10, 2025, to which Defendant responded on 9 August 12, 2025. Plaintiff served her First Set of Interrogatories on Defendant on September 4, 10 2025. Plaintiff also served her Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant 11 on September 4, 2025. Defendant served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on 12 Plaintiff on September 6, 2025, to which Plaintiff responded on October 20, 2025. Defendant 13 respectively served its responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories on October 20, 2025. 14 In addition to party discovery, Plaintiff has pursued third-party discovery. On June 25, 2025, 15 Plaintiff issued a subpoena to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission ("NERC") for its investigation 16 file related to Plaintiff's charge of discrimination. NERC produced responsive documents in August 17 2025 (bates-numbered CABRAL-0000330 through CABRAL-0000715). On September 4, 2025, 18 Plaintiff noticed a subpoena to The Hartford for production on October 6, 2025, seeking documents 19 related to Plaintiff's disability claims and appeals. 20 B. Discovery Which Still Needs to Occur. 21 Defendant intends to depose Plaintiff. Plaintiff intends to take an FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition 22 of Defendant regarding Defendant's policies, procedures, employment practices, FMLA 23 administration, disability accommodation processes, and the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's 24 employment and termination. Plaintiff also intends to depose Defendant's employees, including 25 Christine Pacquing (Plaintiff's supervisor), Chona Vallejo (Human Resources Manager), Jennifer 26 Severs (Corporate Human Resources Manager), and Miriam Rodriguez (former Payroll Analyst). 27 C. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery. 1 ninety (91) days to Monday, March 16, 2026 (as the 90th day lands on a non-judicial date, Sunday 2 March 15, 2026). 3 Dispositive Motions - The January 14, 2026, dispositive motions deadline shall be extended 4 to Wednesday, April 15, 2026, which is thirty (30) days after the discovery deadline. 5 Pretrial Order - If no dispositive motions are filed, the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed 6 thirty (30) days after the date set for the filing of the dispositive motions, which is Friday, May 15, 7 2026. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be 8 suspended until thirty (30) days after the decision on the dispositive motions or by further order of 9 the Court. 10 D. Good Cause Supports the Request to Extend the Deadlines as Set Forth Herein. 11 When a stipulation requires the modification of the scheduling order, the parties must first 12 satisfy the "good cause" standard established by Rule 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 13 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ("A schedule may be 14 modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent"). The good cause inquiry is focused on 15 the movant's reasons for seeking to modify the scheduling order and primarily considers the 16 movant's diligence. In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 17 2013). The key determination is whether the subject deadline "cannot reasonably be met despite the 18 diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court considers whether 19 relief from the scheduling order is sought based on the development of matters that could not have 20 been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 21 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may also consider other pertinent circumstances, including 22 whether the movant was diligent in seeking modification of the scheduling order once it became 23 apparent that the movant required relief from the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 24 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). "The diligence obligation is ongoing" such that parties must 25 "diligently attempt to adhere to [the deadlines in the scheduling order] throughout the subsequent 26 course of the litigation." Id. 27 Good cause supports the parties' request to extend the Discovery Cut-Off, Dispositive 1 between one another following the Early Neutral Evaluation scheduled for August 15, 2025, which 2 was vacated due to a significant disparity in settlement positions. [ECF No. 21]. The parties 3 subsequently stipulated to a settlement conference, which has been scheduled for December 15, 4 2025, the same date as the current discovery deadline. [ECF No. 13; ECF Nos. 29-30]. The parties 5 have been diligently pursuing discovery while simultaneously focusing their resources on settlement 6 efforts, which may obviate the need for extensive litigation. 7 The parties have diligently exchanged initial disclosures, supplemental disclosures, multiple 8 sets of written discovery, and substantial document productions totaling over 1,300 pages. The 9 parties have also pursued third-party subpoenas, including from NERC and The Hartford. However, 10 substantial discovery remains, including numerous fact witness depositions, medical provider 11 depositions, and completion of third-party discovery. The volume of remaining discovery cannot 12 reasonably be completed by December 15, 2025, particularly given the holiday period and the 13 settlement conference scheduled for that date. The parties are seeking this extension promptly upon 14 recognizing that the deadline cannot be met, demonstrating the ongoing diligence in conducting 15 discovery in this case. The extension will not prejudice either party and will serve judicial economy 16 by allowing the parties to complete discovery if the matter does not resolve at the settlement 17 conference, which may facilitate resolution without the need for dispositive motions or trial. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 The Parties submit that these circumstances satisfy the required good cause in extending the 2 Discovery Cut-Off, Dispositive Motions, and Pretrial Order Deadlines. 3 The Parties hereby stipulate to the aforementioned. 4 /s/ Michael A. Burnette /s/ Matthew L. Durham JEMMA E. DUNN STEVEN B. SCOW 5 Nevada Bar No. 16229 Nevada Bar No. 9906 6 MATTHEW T. HALE MATTHEW L. DURHAM Nevada Bar No. 16880 Nevada Bar No. 10342 7 MICHAEL A. BURNETTE MACKENZIE SODERBERG Nevada Bar No. 16210 Nevada Bar No. 16564 8 GREENBERG GROSS LLP KING SCOW KOCH DURHAM LLC 9 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 730 11500 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 210 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Henderson, Nevada 89052 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant 11 ORDER 12 IT IS SO ORDERED: 13 14 __________________________________________ 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 DATED: November 25, 2025 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27