Smith v. Villegas

D. Nevada

Smith v. Villegas

DecidedMarch 17, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-00872

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Villegas (Smith v. Villegas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Villegas, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 ||} AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 || MAYRA GARAY (Bar No. 15550) Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 State of Nevada Way Suite 100 5 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3788 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: mgaray@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants Kerry McCullah, 8 || Martin Naughton, and Lorenzo Villegas 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 || KEITON SMITH, Case No. 2:22-cv-00872-CDS-EJY 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 14 EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 15 || NDOC, ez al., (FIRST JOINT REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Keiton Smith, pro se, and Defendants, Kerry McCullah, Martin Naughton, 18 || and Lorenzo Villegas, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, 19 || and Mayra Garay, Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney 20 |/General, hereby respectfully submit the following Stipulation and Order to Extend 21 || Deadline to File Dispositive Motions outlined in ECF No. 146. 22 BACKGROUND 23 This is a pro se prisoner 42 U.S.C § 1988 civil rights claim brought by inmate Keiton 24 ||Smith (Smith). On September 9, 2024, the Court entered a new scheduling order noting 25 ||that there was no “applicable scheduling order” in place. ECF No. 129. The Scheduling 26 || Order provided a discovery deadline of December 20, 2024, and required that “any written 27 || discovery requests ... be placed in the mail no later than November 15, 2024." Id. at 1:23- 28 || 25. The Court additionally provided a dispositive motions deadline of January 20, 2025. Id.

Pagel

1 |} at 1:26. 2 Following the unexpected departure of Defendants’ former counsel, Defendants 3 ||requested an extension to file a dispositive motion on January 10, 2025. ECF No. 146. 4 || Undersigned Counsel became counsel of record for Defendants on J anuary 23, 2025. ECF 5 148. Defendants responded to all outstanding discovery requests and served Smith 6 || their first supplemental disclosures of witnesses and documents by February 4, 2025. 7 || Currently, there are no outstanding discovery requests. 8 On February 11, 2025, Smith filed his Motion for Video Recording of Cell or Area 9 || Search regarding documents he claims went missing following a search of his cell. ECF No. 10 150. This Court granted Smith’s motion ordering Defendants to obtain video footage of the 11 ||search, if any, and to return Smith’s documents related to this lawsuit. ECF No. 155. 12 || Defense Counsel meet and conferred with Smith on March 14, 2025 to inquire when the 13 || Search occurred as that was not indicated in his motion and what documents are currently 14 || missing that Defense Counsel can immediately provide while Defense Counsel investigates 15 obtains the cell search video footage and the property that Smith claims is missing. 16 || During this discussion, Defense Counsel asked Smith if in light of the missing documents 17 || he would like to make a joint request to extend the current deadline for dispositive motions. 1g Smith agreed noting that he is unable to detail the documents that he claims are missing 19 ||So having more time to determine what is missing would enable him to better prepare for 99 opposition to Defendants’ dispositive motion. In an abundance of caution, Defense 91 || Counsel agreed to resend all of Defendants’ disclosures, including his medical file, which 99, || may contain the medical kites that Smith claims are missing. Defense Counsel also offered 93 to print and send him copies of any court filings from this matter that Smith believes are 24 missing. Smith again reiterated that he would need more time to go through his property 25 to determine what filings if any are missing. 26 II. LEGAL STANDAND 27 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 28 such, it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860

Page 2

1 || (8th Cir. 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court... must be in writing 2 || and signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a). No stipulation 3 ||/relating to proceedings before the court ... are effective until approved by the court. 4 || LR 7-1(b). 5 A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling 6 ||order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, be 7 || supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. Local Rules of Practice (LR) 26-3. 8 || A motion or stipulation to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery must include: 9 || (a) astatement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery 10 |/that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the 11 || remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; 12 || and (d) a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 13 The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably 14 || be met despite the exercise of diligence. McCart-Pollak v. On Demand Direct Response LLC, 15 || Case No. 2:20-cv-01624-GMN-MDC, 2024 WL 3256517, at *3 (D. Nev. July 1, 2024) (iting 16 || Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). This showing of 17 || diligence is measured by the movant's conduct throughout the entire period of time already 18 || allowed. McCart-Pollak, 2024 WL 3256517, at *3 (citing CC.Mexicano. US, LLC v. Aero 1. 19 || Aviation, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169110, at *11-12 (D. Nev. Dec. 15, 2015)). If diligence 20 |/is not established, the Court’s inquiry should end. McCart-Pollak, 2024 WL 3256517, at *3 21 || (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal citation omitted)). 22 A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension 23 ||requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the 24 || court granted. LR IA 6-1. 25 LOCAL RULE 26-3 REQUIREMENTS 26 a. Discovery Completed 27 Defendants served initial and first supplemental disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26. 28 ||Smith has not yet sent his initial disclosures but will do so in the next couple of weeks.

Page 3

1 ||}Smith served Defendants with several discovery requests, all of which Defendants have 2 || responded to. There is no outstanding discovery to be completed. 3 b. Reasons For Extension of Dispositive Deadline 4 In light of Smith’s claims that he is missing legal documents related to this case, 5 || Defense Counsel asked Smith if he would like to extend the dispositive motion deadline for 6 days and he agreed. This extension would allow Smith to specifically identify what 7 documents related to this case he claims are missing and allow Defense Counsel to provide 8 ||him new copies of these documents, regardless of the outcome of Defense Counsel’s 9 || investigation regarding the missing property. The parties have worked together in good 10 || faith to conduct discovery and address Smith’s claim that he is missing some of his legal 11 documents. Defendants, in good faith and an abundance of caution to ensure the fairness 12 || of this litigation, propose this extension to provide Smith with the opportunity to obtain 13 || any documents he claims to be missing, even if the evidence later proves that his property 14 not in fact taken.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 ||} AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 || MAYRA GARAY (Bar No. 15550) Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 State of Nevada Way Suite 100 5 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3788 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: mgaray@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants Kerry McCullah, 8 || Martin Naughton, and Lorenzo Villegas 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 || KEITON SMITH, Case No. 2:22-cv-00872-CDS-EJY 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 14 EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 15 || NDOC, ez al., (FIRST JOINT REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Keiton Smith, pro se, and Defendants, Kerry McCullah, Martin Naughton, 18 || and Lorenzo Villegas, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, 19 || and Mayra Garay, Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney 20 |/General, hereby respectfully submit the following Stipulation and Order to Extend 21 || Deadline to File Dispositive Motions outlined in ECF No. 146. 22 BACKGROUND 23 This is a pro se prisoner 42 U.S.C § 1988 civil rights claim brought by inmate Keiton 24 ||Smith (Smith). On September 9, 2024, the Court entered a new scheduling order noting 25 ||that there was no “applicable scheduling order” in place. ECF No. 129. The Scheduling 26 || Order provided a discovery deadline of December 20, 2024, and required that “any written 27 || discovery requests ... be placed in the mail no later than November 15, 2024." Id. at 1:23- 28 || 25. The Court additionally provided a dispositive motions deadline of January 20, 2025. Id.

Pagel

1 |} at 1:26. 2 Following the unexpected departure of Defendants’ former counsel, Defendants 3 ||requested an extension to file a dispositive motion on January 10, 2025. ECF No. 146. 4 || Undersigned Counsel became counsel of record for Defendants on J anuary 23, 2025. ECF 5 148. Defendants responded to all outstanding discovery requests and served Smith 6 || their first supplemental disclosures of witnesses and documents by February 4, 2025. 7 || Currently, there are no outstanding discovery requests. 8 On February 11, 2025, Smith filed his Motion for Video Recording of Cell or Area 9 || Search regarding documents he claims went missing following a search of his cell. ECF No. 10 150. This Court granted Smith’s motion ordering Defendants to obtain video footage of the 11 ||search, if any, and to return Smith’s documents related to this lawsuit. ECF No. 155. 12 || Defense Counsel meet and conferred with Smith on March 14, 2025 to inquire when the 13 || Search occurred as that was not indicated in his motion and what documents are currently 14 || missing that Defense Counsel can immediately provide while Defense Counsel investigates 15 obtains the cell search video footage and the property that Smith claims is missing. 16 || During this discussion, Defense Counsel asked Smith if in light of the missing documents 17 || he would like to make a joint request to extend the current deadline for dispositive motions. 1g Smith agreed noting that he is unable to detail the documents that he claims are missing 19 ||So having more time to determine what is missing would enable him to better prepare for 99 opposition to Defendants’ dispositive motion. In an abundance of caution, Defense 91 || Counsel agreed to resend all of Defendants’ disclosures, including his medical file, which 99, || may contain the medical kites that Smith claims are missing. Defense Counsel also offered 93 to print and send him copies of any court filings from this matter that Smith believes are 24 missing. Smith again reiterated that he would need more time to go through his property 25 to determine what filings if any are missing. 26 II. LEGAL STANDAND 27 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 28 such, it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860

Page 2

1 || (8th Cir. 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court... must be in writing 2 || and signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a). No stipulation 3 ||/relating to proceedings before the court ... are effective until approved by the court. 4 || LR 7-1(b). 5 A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling 6 ||order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, be 7 || supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. Local Rules of Practice (LR) 26-3. 8 || A motion or stipulation to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery must include: 9 || (a) astatement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery 10 |/that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the 11 || remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; 12 || and (d) a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 13 The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably 14 || be met despite the exercise of diligence. McCart-Pollak v. On Demand Direct Response LLC, 15 || Case No. 2:20-cv-01624-GMN-MDC, 2024 WL 3256517, at *3 (D. Nev. July 1, 2024) (iting 16 || Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). This showing of 17 || diligence is measured by the movant's conduct throughout the entire period of time already 18 || allowed. McCart-Pollak, 2024 WL 3256517, at *3 (citing CC.Mexicano. US, LLC v. Aero 1. 19 || Aviation, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169110, at *11-12 (D. Nev. Dec. 15, 2015)). If diligence 20 |/is not established, the Court’s inquiry should end. McCart-Pollak, 2024 WL 3256517, at *3 21 || (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal citation omitted)). 22 A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension 23 ||requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the 24 || court granted. LR IA 6-1. 25 LOCAL RULE 26-3 REQUIREMENTS 26 a. Discovery Completed 27 Defendants served initial and first supplemental disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26. 28 ||Smith has not yet sent his initial disclosures but will do so in the next couple of weeks.

Page 3

1 ||}Smith served Defendants with several discovery requests, all of which Defendants have 2 || responded to. There is no outstanding discovery to be completed. 3 b. Reasons For Extension of Dispositive Deadline 4 In light of Smith’s claims that he is missing legal documents related to this case, 5 || Defense Counsel asked Smith if he would like to extend the dispositive motion deadline for 6 days and he agreed. This extension would allow Smith to specifically identify what 7 documents related to this case he claims are missing and allow Defense Counsel to provide 8 ||him new copies of these documents, regardless of the outcome of Defense Counsel’s 9 || investigation regarding the missing property. The parties have worked together in good 10 || faith to conduct discovery and address Smith’s claim that he is missing some of his legal 11 documents. Defendants, in good faith and an abundance of caution to ensure the fairness 12 || of this litigation, propose this extension to provide Smith with the opportunity to obtain 13 || any documents he claims to be missing, even if the evidence later proves that his property 14 not in fact taken. The parties have discussed and outlined the discovery that the 15 parties believe will be necessary and now propose these new deadlines for dispositive 16 || motions to the court. c. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery 18 The parties jointly propose the following scheduling plan: 19

21 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 /// 27 |}; ———___ 28 1 Because 30 days from March zi; 2025 is Sunday, April 20, 2025, the next business day, Monday, April 21, 2025 is proposed instead.

Page 4

1 In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pretrial 2 |\Order shall be suspended until thirty days after the decision on the dispositive motions or 3 further order of the court. 4 5 DATED this LY th day of March, 2025. DATED this 14th day of March, 2025. 6 AARON D. FORD 7 Attorney General 8 = —————_ By: /s/ Mayra Garay KEITON SMITH MAYRA GARAY 9 Pro se Plaintiff Deputy Attorney General 10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED: 13 14 15 . 16 U.S 7 mad TE JUDGE 17 Dated: March 17, 2025 18 19 20 21

23 24

26 27 28

Page 5

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Villegas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-villegas-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack