1 LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, PLLC Nathan E. Lawrence, NBN 15060 2 || Joseph P. Lawrence, NBN 16726 3 9480 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 213 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 4 || Telephone: 702-534-6556 5 || Facsimile: 702-602-5168 nathan@law2esq.com 6 joseph@law2esq.com 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 10 JAITYAUNA RAYSHAWN YOAKUM, an Case No.: 2:23-cv-01740-APG-DJA & 11 || individual; and JOHNTOVIA PRESTON, an individual; collectively, x «12 YO Plaintiffs, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 3 TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 14 V DEADLINES .
IS HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., a foreign 2 16 || corporation; PETEFISH GENE PETEFISH, . £ an individual; and DOES I to X, inclusive; (Third Request) = !7 collectively,
18 Defendants. 19 20 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (““FRCP) 6(b)(1) and Local Rules IA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 26-3, 21 || Plaintiffs JATYAUNA RAYSHAWN YOAKUM and JOHNTOVIA PRESTON, by and through 22 ||their attorneys of the law firm of LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, PLLC, and Defendants 23 || HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. and PETEFISH GENE PETEFISH, by and through their 24 || attorneys of the law firm of OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., hereby submit 25 || this Stipulation and Order to Extend the Discovery Deadlines. 26 This is the third stipulation to extend the discovery deadline, and this stipulation is 27 || presented to the Court in advance of the currently calendared close of discovery on March 5, 28 ||2025. For the foregoing reasons and as is more fully explicated below, the Parties stipulate to ] Page | of 5
1 and respectfully request that this Court extend the discovery and associated deadlines in this 2 || matter. 3 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4 1. On September 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants in the Eighth 5 || Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada [ECF No. 1-1]. 6 2. On October 26, 2023, Defendants timely removed this matter to federal court [ECF 7 || No. 1] and filed their respective Answers on November 9, 2023 [ECF Nos. 11, 12]. 8 3. On December 14, 2023, the Court entered an Order adopting the Parties’ proposed 9 Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order [ECF No. 21], which was subsequently extended on 10 || July 8, 2024, by Stipulation and Order [ECF Nos. 32, 33]. 11 4. On April 9, 2024, the parties participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation with U.S. 12 || Magistrate Judge Couvillier [ECF No. 31], but the parties were unable to resolve the matter during 13 || that proceeding and the case remains on the litigation track. = 14 5. On October 7, 2024, while Plaintiffs’ counsel was still with the now-dissolved law = 15 || firm of Gallian Welker & Associates, L.C. (“GWA”), the parties stipulated to an additional 2 16 extension [ECF No. 34] which the Court granted [ECF No. 35], setting present discovery = 17 || deadlines as follows: < 18 ¢ Initial Expert Disclosures — January 6, 2025 (now passed); 19 ¢ Rebuttal Expert Disclosures — February 5, 2025 (now passed); 20 ¢ Discovery Cut-Off Date — March 5, 2025; 21 ¢ Dispositive Motion Deadline — April 7, 2025; and 22 ¢ Joint Pretrial Order Deadline — May 5, 2025. 23 6. In late October 2024, following the events described in the prior Stipulation to 24 || Extend Discovery Deadlines and as expanded below, Plaintiffs’ counsel, of necessity, left GWA 25 and started a new firm in order to continue his practice and representation of the Plaintiffs, the 26 || exigencies and logistics of which have created unavoidable delays in the discovery process. 27 LEGAL STANDARD Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant part, that
| Page 2 of 5
1 || “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend 2 || the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the 3 || original time or its extension expires.” If additional time for any purpose is needed, the proper 4 || procedure is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup 5 ||v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An extension of time may 6 ||always be sought and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under 7 || subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). Also, a 8 || district court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket. Hamilton Copper & Steel 2 9 Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 10 || 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 LR JA 6-1 additionally requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the = 12 || extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the specified period 13 unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired = 14 || resulted because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to extend any date set by = 15 || the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as satisfying the requirements 2 16 |}of LR JA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension, and such a motion filed after the = 17 || expiration of the deadline will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to < 18 || act resulted from excusable neglect. 19 Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion to 20 || extend a discovery deadline: (a) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific 21 || description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline was 22 ||not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the 23 || discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 24 |} I. = ARGUMENT 25 A, The Four Factors Contained Within LR 26-3 Are Satisfied, and the Parties 26 Show Good Cause for Modifying the Scheduling Order. 27 1. Discovery Completed to Date: The Parties have exchanged initial disclosure statements and related discovery, with
| Page 3 of 5
1 |}multiple supplements thereto. Written discovery has been propounded and is ongoing. 2 || Depositions of both Plaintiffs were conducted on January 9 and January 14, 2025, and the 3 ||deposition of Defendant Petefish was completed on January 27, 2025. Depositions of two 4 || additional percipient witnesses were also completed in January 2025. 5 2. Discovery Remaining: 6 Additional written discovery is anticipated by all parties, particularly following the 7 ||deposition of Defendant Petefish, during which numerous other percipient witnesses were 8 ||referenced but only partially identified, necessitating further written discovery and likely 9 depositions, including of the Rule 30(b)(6) designee(s) for Defendant Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 10 3. Reasons Why Deadline Will Not Be Satisfied or Remaining Discovery 11 Cannot Be Completed Within Current Time Limits = 12 As noted in the prior stipulation for an extension of discovery deadlines in October 2024, 13 there were substantial changes with the structure and staffing of Plaintiffs’ counsels’ firm, = 14 || eventually leading to that firm’s cessation of the practice of law. As a consequence thereof, = 15 || Plaintiffs’ counsel, in late October 2024, was compelled to start a new firm, the demands of which 2 16 || have further burdened timely completion of necessary discovery in this matter. All reasonable = 17 || efforts have been made to comply with the present deadlines, but additional time is needed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, PLLC Nathan E. Lawrence, NBN 15060 2 || Joseph P. Lawrence, NBN 16726 3 9480 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 213 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 4 || Telephone: 702-534-6556 5 || Facsimile: 702-602-5168 nathan@law2esq.com 6 joseph@law2esq.com 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 10 JAITYAUNA RAYSHAWN YOAKUM, an Case No.: 2:23-cv-01740-APG-DJA & 11 || individual; and JOHNTOVIA PRESTON, an individual; collectively, x «12 YO Plaintiffs, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 3 TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 14 V DEADLINES .
IS HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., a foreign 2 16 || corporation; PETEFISH GENE PETEFISH, . £ an individual; and DOES I to X, inclusive; (Third Request) = !7 collectively,
18 Defendants. 19 20 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (““FRCP) 6(b)(1) and Local Rules IA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 26-3, 21 || Plaintiffs JATYAUNA RAYSHAWN YOAKUM and JOHNTOVIA PRESTON, by and through 22 ||their attorneys of the law firm of LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, PLLC, and Defendants 23 || HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. and PETEFISH GENE PETEFISH, by and through their 24 || attorneys of the law firm of OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., hereby submit 25 || this Stipulation and Order to Extend the Discovery Deadlines. 26 This is the third stipulation to extend the discovery deadline, and this stipulation is 27 || presented to the Court in advance of the currently calendared close of discovery on March 5, 28 ||2025. For the foregoing reasons and as is more fully explicated below, the Parties stipulate to ] Page | of 5
1 and respectfully request that this Court extend the discovery and associated deadlines in this 2 || matter. 3 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4 1. On September 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants in the Eighth 5 || Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada [ECF No. 1-1]. 6 2. On October 26, 2023, Defendants timely removed this matter to federal court [ECF 7 || No. 1] and filed their respective Answers on November 9, 2023 [ECF Nos. 11, 12]. 8 3. On December 14, 2023, the Court entered an Order adopting the Parties’ proposed 9 Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order [ECF No. 21], which was subsequently extended on 10 || July 8, 2024, by Stipulation and Order [ECF Nos. 32, 33]. 11 4. On April 9, 2024, the parties participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation with U.S. 12 || Magistrate Judge Couvillier [ECF No. 31], but the parties were unable to resolve the matter during 13 || that proceeding and the case remains on the litigation track. = 14 5. On October 7, 2024, while Plaintiffs’ counsel was still with the now-dissolved law = 15 || firm of Gallian Welker & Associates, L.C. (“GWA”), the parties stipulated to an additional 2 16 extension [ECF No. 34] which the Court granted [ECF No. 35], setting present discovery = 17 || deadlines as follows: < 18 ¢ Initial Expert Disclosures — January 6, 2025 (now passed); 19 ¢ Rebuttal Expert Disclosures — February 5, 2025 (now passed); 20 ¢ Discovery Cut-Off Date — March 5, 2025; 21 ¢ Dispositive Motion Deadline — April 7, 2025; and 22 ¢ Joint Pretrial Order Deadline — May 5, 2025. 23 6. In late October 2024, following the events described in the prior Stipulation to 24 || Extend Discovery Deadlines and as expanded below, Plaintiffs’ counsel, of necessity, left GWA 25 and started a new firm in order to continue his practice and representation of the Plaintiffs, the 26 || exigencies and logistics of which have created unavoidable delays in the discovery process. 27 LEGAL STANDARD Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant part, that
| Page 2 of 5
1 || “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend 2 || the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the 3 || original time or its extension expires.” If additional time for any purpose is needed, the proper 4 || procedure is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup 5 ||v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An extension of time may 6 ||always be sought and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under 7 || subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). Also, a 8 || district court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket. Hamilton Copper & Steel 2 9 Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 10 || 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 LR JA 6-1 additionally requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the = 12 || extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the specified period 13 unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired = 14 || resulted because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to extend any date set by = 15 || the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as satisfying the requirements 2 16 |}of LR JA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension, and such a motion filed after the = 17 || expiration of the deadline will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to < 18 || act resulted from excusable neglect. 19 Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion to 20 || extend a discovery deadline: (a) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific 21 || description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline was 22 ||not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the 23 || discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 24 |} I. = ARGUMENT 25 A, The Four Factors Contained Within LR 26-3 Are Satisfied, and the Parties 26 Show Good Cause for Modifying the Scheduling Order. 27 1. Discovery Completed to Date: The Parties have exchanged initial disclosure statements and related discovery, with
| Page 3 of 5
1 |}multiple supplements thereto. Written discovery has been propounded and is ongoing. 2 || Depositions of both Plaintiffs were conducted on January 9 and January 14, 2025, and the 3 ||deposition of Defendant Petefish was completed on January 27, 2025. Depositions of two 4 || additional percipient witnesses were also completed in January 2025. 5 2. Discovery Remaining: 6 Additional written discovery is anticipated by all parties, particularly following the 7 ||deposition of Defendant Petefish, during which numerous other percipient witnesses were 8 ||referenced but only partially identified, necessitating further written discovery and likely 9 depositions, including of the Rule 30(b)(6) designee(s) for Defendant Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 10 3. Reasons Why Deadline Will Not Be Satisfied or Remaining Discovery 11 Cannot Be Completed Within Current Time Limits = 12 As noted in the prior stipulation for an extension of discovery deadlines in October 2024, 13 there were substantial changes with the structure and staffing of Plaintiffs’ counsels’ firm, = 14 || eventually leading to that firm’s cessation of the practice of law. As a consequence thereof, = 15 || Plaintiffs’ counsel, in late October 2024, was compelled to start a new firm, the demands of which 2 16 || have further burdened timely completion of necessary discovery in this matter. All reasonable = 17 || efforts have been made to comply with the present deadlines, but additional time is needed. < 18 || Additionally, as referenced above, the deposition of Defendant Petefish (the transcript for which 19 || was received by Plaintiffs’ counsel on February 11, 2025) identified multiple additional witnesses 20 |} and lines of inquiry which necessitate more time for such discovery. The Parties stipulate that 21 || these events and circumstances constitute good cause and excusable neglect. Accordingly, in the 22 ||interests of equity and to effect the most complete discovery in this matter while pursuing 23 || expedited conclusion of the case, the Parties jointly request that the Court amend the present 24 || Scheduling Order [ECF No. 35] and extend all case deadlines by 45 days, as detailed below. 25 4. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery:
| Page 4 of 5
1 ||| Deadline for Rebuttal Experts February 5, 2025 (no change) 2 Dispositive Motion Deadline April 7, 2025 May 21, 2025 3 Joint Pretrial Order Deadline May 5, 2025 June 20, 2025 * 4 5 * Tn the event a dispositive motion is under submission by May 21, 2025, the Joint Pre-Trial ‘ Order shall be due no later than 30 days after entry of the Court’s order ruling on same. 7 All other discovery dates not referenced herein remain unchanged. 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 9 3 DATED this 25" day of February 2025. DATED this 25" day of February 2025. 9 10 > S LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE LAW, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 4 PLLC STEWART, P.C. 12 /s/ Noel M. Hernandez 2 Nathan E-hawteénce, NBN 15060 Molly M. Rezac, NBN 7435 14 Joseph P. Lawrence, NBN 16726 molly.rezac@ogletree.com 1s || 9480 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 213 200 S. Virginia Street, 8th Floor 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Reno, NV 89501 3 || Telephone: 702-534-6556 Telephone: 775-440-2373 = 17 |] Facsimile: 702-602-5168 Kathryn C. Newman < 18 nathan@law2esq.com kathryn.newman@ogletree.com joseph@law2esq.com Noel M. Hernandez 19 |) Attorneys for Plaintiffs noel.hernandez@ogletree.com 20 10801 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 500 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: 702-369-6800 22 Fax: 702-369-6888 Attorneys for Defendants Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. & Petefish Gene Petefish 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ) . DATED: 2/26/2025 ) MA | LY) UNITED STATES MA\GISTRATE JUDGE R
C ] Page 5 of 5