Matthews et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, No. 2:2018cv00231 - Document 35 (D. Nev. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 29 Stipulation re Discovery. Discovery due by 12/3/2018. Motions due by 1/2/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/1/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Matthews et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Doc. 35 Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LYSSA S. ANDERSON Nevada Bar No. 5781 RYAN W. DANIELS Nevada Bar No. 13094 KAEMPFER CROWELL 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Fax: (702) 796-7181 landerson@kcnvlaw.com rdaniels@kcnvlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 JAMES IIAMS, individually and AMANDA MATTHEWS, individually, CASE NO.: 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; SERGEANT JUSTIN BRYERS; OFFICER RICHARD NELSON; OFFICER JONATHAN CARRINGTON; OFFICER LUKAS FERRIS; and DOE OFFICERS I-XX, 15 16 17 STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (First Request) Defendants. 18 8345 West Sunset Road Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW GRONAUER & FIORENTINO 19 20 Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), by and through its 21 counsel, Lyssa Anderson, Esq., of the law firm of Kaempfer Crowell, and James Iiams and 22 Amanda Matthews (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, Jared Richards, Esq. of Clear 23 Counsel Law Group hereby stipulate and agree that the discovery cut-off date of September 4, 24 2018, be continued for a period of ninety (90) days up to and including December 3, 2018, for 2177597_1.doc 6943.146 Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 2 of 6 1 the purpose of allowing the newly named Defendants to be served and respond to the Amended 2 Complaint, to allow the parties to complete written discovery, to retain and disclose expert 3 witnesses, and to take depositions of the parties and third-party witnesses. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 4 5 Defendant, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, (“LVMPD”) 6 has provided its initial Rule 26(f) Disclosures and its First Supplement to Rule 26 Disclosures to 7 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have provided their Rule 26 Disclosures to LVMPD. 8 LVMPD served its First Interrogatories on Plaintiffs which were responded to. LVMPD 9 also served Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents on each 10 Plaintiff. Those responses are currently due July 19, 2018 and July 26, 2018. DISCOVERY YET TO BE COMPLETED 11 12 Plaintiffs were recently given leave to file an Amended Complaint adding several 13 individual LVMPD Officers as Defendants. The Amended Complaint was filed on July 2, 2018 14 and Summonses were issued for the individual Officers. Plaintiffs have not yet served the newly 15 named Defendants and LVMPD has not filed a response to the Amended Complaint. 16 Plaintiffs will respond to the outstanding Requests for Admissions and Requests for 17 Production of Documents by LVMPD. Plaintiffs will serve written discovery on LVMPD and 18 the newly named Defendants once they make an appearance in the case. The parties will provide 19 additional documents and will take the depositions of the named parties and possibly some third- 20 party witnesses. The parties will retain expert witnesses and disclose expert reports. 8345 West Sunset Road Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW GRONAUER & FIORENTINO 21 REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED 22 As set out above, the Plaintiffs were recently permitted by the Court to amend their 23 Complaint to add additional Defendants. The newly named Defendants have not yet been served 24 and have not yet made an appearance. With the addition of new Defendants, the scope of 2177597_1.doc 6943.146 Page 2 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 3 of 6 1 discovery has changed. The parties have been diligent in engaging in discovery, however, based 2 upon the procedural history, the parties require additional time to conduct discovery. PROPOSED EXTENDED DEADLINES 3 4 5 (A) 7 That the current discovery cut-off date of September 4, 2018, be extended for a period of 9 8345 West Sunset Road Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 order as follows: 6 8 KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW GRONAUER & FIORENTINO Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated and respectfully requested that this Court enter an Discovery Deadline. ninety (90) days, up to and including December 3, 2018. (B) Experts and Rebuttal Experts. 10 The parties, and each of them, shall disclose their experts to each other at least sixty (60) 11 days before the discovery cut-off date, or by October 4, 2018. The parties, and each of them, 12 shall disclose rebuttal experts at least thirty (30) days after the initial date for disclosure of 13 experts, or by November 5, 2018. 14 (C) Dispositive Motions. 15 All pretrial motions, including but not limited to, discovery motions, motions to dismiss, 16 motions for summary judgment, and all other dispositive motions shall be filed and served no 17 later than thirty (30) days after the close of discovery, which is by January 2, 2019. 18 (D) Motions in Limine/Daubert Motions. 19 Under LR 16-3(b), any motions in limine, including Daubert type motions, shall be filed 20 and served thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of Trial. Oppositions shall be filed and 21 served and the motion submitted for decision fourteen (14) days thereafter. Reply briefs will be 22 allowed only with leave of the Court. 23 24 2177597_1.doc 6943.146 Page 3 of 6 8345 West Sunset Road Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW GRONAUER & FIORENTINO Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 4 of 6 1 (E) Pretrial Order. 2 Pursuant to LR 26(1)(e)(5) the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed with this Court no later 3 than thirty (30) days after the date set for filing dispositive motions, which shall be by 4 February 1, 2019, unless dispositive motions are filed, in which case the date for filing the Joint 5 Pretrial Order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after the decision on the dispositive 6 motions or further order of this Court. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and 7 any objections shall be included in the final pretrial order. 8 (F) Interim Status Report. 9 In accordance with LR 26-3, not later than sixty (60) days before the discovery cut-off, 10 the parties shall submit an interim status report stating the time they estimate will be required for 11 trial giving three (3) alternative available trial dates, and stating whether in the opinion of 12 counsel who will try the case, trial will be eliminated or its length affected by substantive 13 motions. The status report shall be signed by counsel for each party or the party, if appearing in 14 pro se. The parties shall file the interim status report by October 4, 2018. 15 (G) 16 In accordance with LR 26-4, applications to extend any date set by the discovery plan, 17 scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be 18 supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend a 19 deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received by the Court not later than twenty-one 20 (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made after the expiration of 21 the subject deadline shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to set 22 was the result of excusable neglect. Any motion or stipulation to extend a deadline or to reopen 23 discovery shall include: 24 (a) 2177597_1.doc 6943.146 Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. A statement specifying the discovery completed; Page 4 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 5 of 6 1 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 2 (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was 3 not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and 4 (d) 5 The parties recognize that this request is not being made within twenty-one (21) days of 6 the current deadline to disclose expert witnesses, July 6, 2018 pursuant to LR 26-4; however the 7 parties submit that the excusable neglect exists. 8 LR 26-4 states in relevant part: 9 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 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 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 excusable neglect. 10 11 A proposed scheduled for completing all discovery. 8345 West Sunset Road Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW GRONAUER & FIORENTINO 12 13 In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: (1) the reason 14 for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the 15 moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the 16 proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. 17 v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). 18 The parties were not aware whether Plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint would be 19 granted twenty-one (21) days ago. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was just filed on 20 July 2, 2018. Since Plaintiffs’ Complaint has been amended to name new Defendants, the scope 21 of discovery has changed. Moreover, the new Defendants should be afforded time to participate 22 in discovery after their appearance is made. 23 This request for an extension is made in good faith, jointly by the parties hereto, to allow 24 additional time for the new Defendants to be served and appear in the case; to allow the parties’ 2177597_1.doc 6943.146 Page 5 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-00231-RFB-CWH Document 29 Filed 07/06/18 Page 6 of 6 1 time to complete written discovery, to taken depositions and to disclose expert witnesses and 2 rebuttal expert witnesses. This request is not timely, however, is the result of excusable neglect, 3 being that the parties were not certain whether the leave to amend would be granted by the Court. 4 Trial is not yet set in this matter dispositive motions have not yet been filed. Accordingly, this 5 extension will not delay this case. Moreover, since this request is a joint request, neither party 6 will be prejudiced. The extension will allow the parties the necessary time to prosecute this case. DATED this 6th day of July, 2018. 7 8 KAEMPFER CROWELL CLEAR COUNSEL LAW GROUP By: By: 9 10 11 12 13 /s/ Lyssa S. Anderson LYSSA S. ANDERSON Nevada Bar No. 5781 RYAN W. DANIELS Nevada Bar No. 13094 1980 Festival Plaza Drive Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Attorneys for Defendant /s/ Jared Richards Jared Richards, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11254 1671 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy, Ste. 200 Henderson, NV 89102 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 15 16 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MAGISTRATE 19 Dated: July 11, 2018 20 8345 West Sunset Road Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 KAEMPFER CROWELL RENSHAW GRONAUER & FIORENTINO 21 22 23 24 2177597_1.doc 6943.146 Page 6 of 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
