Vessells v. Knight Transportation, Inc.

D. Nevada

Vessells v. Knight Transportation, Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided June 15, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00404·Unknown

Opinion

Joel D. Odou Nevada Bar No. 7468 Kyle J. Hoyt Nevada Bar No. 14886 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-9020 Phone: 702 251 4100 ♦ Fax: 702 251 5405 jodou@wshblaw.com khoyt@wshblaw.com Attorneys for Knight Transportation, Inc., Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. and Joseph Hayes JAMES PATRICK VESSELLS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00404-GMN-EJY Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING v. ORDER (FIRST REQUEST) KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION Trial Date: None Set HOLDINGS, INC.; JOSEPH HAYES; DOES I through X, inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants. Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, and for good cause shown, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record hereby stipulate and agree to and jointly move this Honorable Court for an order to continue discovery by ninety (90) days as indicated below. This is the first stipulation for extension of time to complete discovery. The parties have completed the following disclosures and discovery: 1. Defendants Knight Transportation, Inc., Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc., and Joseph Hayes (“Defendants”) served their Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 2. Defendant Joseph Hayes served his First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff on April 14, 2023. 3. Plaintiff served his Initial Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Production of Documents and Witnesses List on April 24, 2023. 4. Defendant Joseph Hayes served his Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff on May 3, 2023. 5. Plaintiff provided his responses to Defendant Hayes’ First Set of Interrogatories, First Set of Requests for Production, and Second Set of Requests for Production on May 12, 2023. 6. On May 18, 2023, Defendants noticed Plaintiff that it would seek documents from the Custodian(s) of Records for fourteen (14) of Plaintiff identified medical treatment providers via subpoena duces tecum. Defendants then issued subpoenas for records to be provided on June 19, 2023. 1. Depositions of parties and/or witnesses; 2. Depositions of person(s) most knowledgeable; 3. Depositions of treating physicians; 4. Expert reports and Rebuttal reports; 5. Expert depositions; 6. Written discovery; 7. Disclosure of additional documents; 8. Subpoena/Obtain additional documents as necessary; 9. The parties also anticipate that they may need to conduct other forms of discovery, though not specifically delineated herein, and anticipate doing so only on an as-needed basis. C. REASON FOR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES A scheduling order can be modified "for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court 'no substantial injury will be occasioned to the opposing party, the refusal to allow the amendment might result in injustice to the movant, and the inconvenience to the court is slight.'" Campbell Industries v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27-28 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Angle v. Sky Chef, Inc., 535 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 1976); Sherman v. United States, 462 F.2d 577, 579 (5th Cir. 1972)). Here, as discussed below, there is no dispute among the parties that an extension would cause any injury or injustice, and that a refusal of extension could prejudice the parties. Additionally, although there may be some inconvenience to the Court, no trial date is currently set and discovery is already ongoing. Therefore, the stipulated request for a modest extension should be granted. In addition to the discovery that has already taken place as set forth above, the parties have diligently worked to continue to conduct discovery in an effort to complete the same and prepare for trial. Plaintiff has identified numerous treatment providers and indicated extensive treatment in the year prior to the accident, including a lengthy hospitalization stay. As such, the medical records sought in discovery in this matter are expected to be voluminous and Defendants require addition time to obtain and review the same, as well as seek the assistance of appropriate medical experts. In sum, the parties have diligently conducted discovery and are continuing to work cooperatively to complete the remaining discovery in order to prepare for trial. Good cause exists for modification of the current scheduling order to avoid prejudice to the parties. D. CURRENT SCHEDULE TO COMPLETE REMAINING DISCOVERY: Initial Experts July 13, 2023 Rebuttals August 14, 2023 Discovery Cutoff September 11, 2023 Dispositive Motions October 11, 2023 Joint Pre-Trial Order November 10, 2023 / / / / / / / / / / / / Initial Experts October 11, 2023 Rebuttals November 10, 2023 Discovery Cutoff December 11, 2023 Dispositive Motions January 10, 2024 Joint Pre-Trial Order February 9, 2024 F. CURRENT TRIAL DATE: No trial is yet scheduled in this matter. A joint proposed pretrial order is due on November 10, 2023, or 30 days following this Court's ruling on any dispositive motions, if filed. The parties seek additional time so that the same proposed pretrial order is due February 9, 2024 or 30 days after this Court's ruling on dispositive motions. G. REQUEST NUMBER: This is the first request for an extension of time to complete discovery. Wherefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this request to extend the discovery deadlines as outlined above. DATED this 15th day of June, 2023. DATED this 15th day of June, 2023. WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP GOLIGHTLY & VANNAH, PLLC By: /s/Kyle J. Hoyt By: /s/John B. Green JOEL D. ODOU JOHN B. GREENE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7468 Nevada Bar No.: 4279 KYLE J. HOYT ROBERT D. VANNAH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14886 Nevada Bar No.: 2503 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 200 5555 Kietzke Lane, Suite 150 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Reno, NV 89511 Attorneys for Defendants Knight Attorneys for Plaintiff Transportation, Inc., Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc., and Joseph Hayes 2 IT IS SO ORDERED this 15thday of June , 2023. 4 . UNITED STA AGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 SUBMITTED BY: 8 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP ? /s/Kyle J. Hoyt >mmam AAJ@@@___ JOEL D. ODOU 11 Nevada Bar No. 7468 KYLE J. HOYT 12 Nevada Bar No. 14886 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 200 eRe 43 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-9020 Attorneys for Knight Transportation, Inc., veg 14 Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc.

and Joseph Hayes 15

a 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Joel D. Odou Nevada Bar No. 7468 Kyle J. Hoyt Nevada Bar No. 14886 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-9020 Phone: 702 251 4100 ♦ Fax: 702 251 5405 jodou@wshblaw.com khoyt@wshblaw.com Attorneys for Knight Transportation, Inc., Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. and Joseph Hayes JAMES PATRICK VESSELLS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00404-GMN-EJY Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING v. ORDER (FIRST REQUEST) KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION Trial Date: None Set HOLDINGS, INC.; JOSEPH HAYES; DOES I through X, inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants. Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, and for good cause shown, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record hereby stipulate and agree to and jointly move this Honorable Court for an order to continue discovery by ninety (90) days as indicated below. This is the first stipulation for extension of time to complete discovery. The parties have completed the following disclosures and discovery: 1. Defendants Knight Transportation, Inc., Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc., and Joseph Hayes (“Defendants”) served their Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 2. Defendant Joseph Hayes served his First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff on April 14, 2023. 3. Plaintiff served his Initial Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Production of Documents and Witnesses List on April 24, 2023. 4. Defendant Joseph Hayes served his Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff on May 3, 2023. 5. Plaintiff provided his responses to Defendant Hayes’ First Set of Interrogatories, First Set of Requests for Production, and Second Set of Requests for Production on May 12, 2023. 6. On May 18, 2023, Defendants noticed Plaintiff that it would seek documents from the Custodian(s) of Records for fourteen (14) of Plaintiff identified medical treatment providers via subpoena duces tecum. Defendants then issued subpoenas for records to be provided on June 19, 2023. 1. Depositions of parties and/or witnesses; 2. Depositions of person(s) most knowledgeable; 3. Depositions of treating physicians; 4. Expert reports and Rebuttal reports; 5. Expert depositions; 6. Written discovery; 7. Disclosure of additional documents; 8. Subpoena/Obtain additional documents as necessary; 9. The parties also anticipate that they may need to conduct other forms of discovery, though not specifically delineated herein, and anticipate doing so only on an as-needed basis. C. REASON FOR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES A scheduling order can be modified "for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court 'no substantial injury will be occasioned to the opposing party, the refusal to allow the amendment might result in injustice to the movant, and the inconvenience to the court is slight.'" Campbell Industries v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27-28 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Angle v. Sky Chef, Inc., 535 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 1976); Sherman v. United States, 462 F.2d 577, 579 (5th Cir. 1972)). Here, as discussed below, there is no dispute among the parties that an extension would cause any injury or injustice, and that a refusal of extension could prejudice the parties. Additionally, although there may be some inconvenience to the Court, no trial date is currently set and discovery is already ongoing. Therefore, the stipulated request for a modest extension should be granted. In addition to the discovery that has already taken place as set forth above, the parties have diligently worked to continue to conduct discovery in an effort to complete the same and prepare for trial. Plaintiff has identified numerous treatment providers and indicated extensive treatment in the year prior to the accident, including a lengthy hospitalization stay. As such, the medical records sought in discovery in this matter are expected to be voluminous and Defendants require addition time to obtain and review the same, as well as seek the assistance of appropriate medical experts. In sum, the parties have diligently conducted discovery and are continuing to work cooperatively to complete the remaining discovery in order to prepare for trial. Good cause exists for modification of the current scheduling order to avoid prejudice to the parties. D. CURRENT SCHEDULE TO COMPLETE REMAINING DISCOVERY: Initial Experts July 13, 2023 Rebuttals August 14, 2023 Discovery Cutoff September 11, 2023 Dispositive Motions October 11, 2023 Joint Pre-Trial Order November 10, 2023 / / / / / / / / / / / / Initial Experts October 11, 2023 Rebuttals November 10, 2023 Discovery Cutoff December 11, 2023 Dispositive Motions January 10, 2024 Joint Pre-Trial Order February 9, 2024 F. CURRENT TRIAL DATE: No trial is yet scheduled in this matter. A joint proposed pretrial order is due on November 10, 2023, or 30 days following this Court's ruling on any dispositive motions, if filed. The parties seek additional time so that the same proposed pretrial order is due February 9, 2024 or 30 days after this Court's ruling on dispositive motions. G. REQUEST NUMBER: This is the first request for an extension of time to complete discovery. Wherefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this request to extend the discovery deadlines as outlined above. DATED this 15th day of June, 2023. DATED this 15th day of June, 2023. WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP GOLIGHTLY & VANNAH, PLLC By: /s/Kyle J. Hoyt By: /s/John B. Green JOEL D. ODOU JOHN B. GREENE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7468 Nevada Bar No.: 4279 KYLE J. HOYT ROBERT D. VANNAH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14886 Nevada Bar No.: 2503 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 200 5555 Kietzke Lane, Suite 150 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Reno, NV 89511 Attorneys for Defendants Knight Attorneys for Plaintiff Transportation, Inc., Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc., and Joseph Hayes 2 IT IS SO ORDERED this 15thday of June , 2023. 4 . UNITED STA AGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 SUBMITTED BY: 8 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP ? /s/Kyle J. Hoyt >mmam AAJ@@@___ JOEL D. ODOU 11 Nevada Bar No. 7468 KYLE J. HOYT 12 Nevada Bar No. 14886 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 200 eRe 43 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-9020 Attorneys for Knight Transportation, Inc., veg 14 Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc.

and Joseph Hayes 15

a 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Vessells v. Knight Transportation, Inc., (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Vessells v. Knight Transportation, Inc. (Vessells v. Knight Transportation, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related