King v. City of Henderson, No. 2:2019cv01129 - Document 35 (D. Nev. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting 34 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Second Request) re Discovery as to 33 Order. Discovery due by 9/10/2020. Motions due by 10/13/2020. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/12/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 5/21/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
King v. City of Henderson Doc. 35 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 35 34 Filed 05/21/20 05/20/20 Page 1 of 6 1 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. SPRETNAK Robert P. Spretnak, Esq. (Bar No. 5135) 8275 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Telephone: (702) 454-4900 Fax: (702) 938-1055 Email: bob @ spretnak.com Attorney for Plaintiff 2 3 4 5 CITY OF HENDERSON Nicholas G. Vaskov, Esq. (Bar No. 8298) Brian R. Reeve, Esq. (Bar No. 10197) Kristina E. Gilmore, Esq. (Bar No. 11564) 240 Water Street, MSC 144 Henderson, Nevada 89015 Telephone: 702-267-1231 Fax: 702-267-1201 Email: brian.reeve @ cityofhenderson.com Attorneys for Defendant 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 DANIEL S. KING, 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 CITY OF HENDERSON, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Plaintiff DANIEL S. KING and Defendant CITY OF HENDERSON, by and through their 20 counsel of record, hereby STIPULATE AND AGREE that the current discovery cutoff date of June 21 12, 2020, be continued for a period of ninety (90) days up to and including September 10, 2020. 22 This is the second extension to the discovery period that has been requested in this matter. The 23 original discovery period, as set forth in ECF No. 23, set the discovery cut-off at April 13, 2020. 24 1. LAW DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE: 25 Plaintiff DANIEL S. KING and Defendant CITY OF HENDERSON, each made their initial 26 disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A), on December 16, 2019, in accordance with 27 the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 23): 28 T HE DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW ) ) ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) EXTEND DISCOVERY ) ) (Second Request) ) ) OFFICES 1. Plaintiff served his First Supplement to Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures on January 17, OF R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K A PR O FE SSIO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N 8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E SU IT E 200 LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123 Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 35 34 Filed 05/21/20 05/20/20 Page 2 of 6 1 2020. Plaintiff served his Second Supplement to Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures on May 8, 2020. 2 Plaintiff served his Third Supplement to Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures on May 15, 2020. 3 2. 4 on March 10, 2020. 5 The parties entered into a Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 32), which was approved by 6 this Court on March 3, 2020. An agreement on the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order was a 7 prerequisite for full production of requested and relevant documentation in this case, as relevant 8 material in this case would include the contents of public employee personnel files and internal 9 affairs investigations of the City of Henderson Police Department. 10 Plaintiff propounded the following written discovery to Defendant: 11 1. by mail on January 17, 2020, and amended on January 18, 2020; Defendant served “City of 13 Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s Amended First Set of Requests for Production of Documents” 14 on March 10, 2020; 2. “Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories,” which were served by mail on January 18, 16 2020; Defendant served “City of Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories” 17 on February 20, 2020; 18 3. “Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions,” which were served by mail on 19 April 3, 2020; Defendant served “City of Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests 20 for Admissions” on April 30, 2020; 21 4. “Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents,” which were served 22 by mail on April 3, 2020; Defendant served “City of Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second 23 Set of Requests for Production of Documents” on April 30, 2020; and 24 5. 25 “Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents,” which were served by mail on April 20, 2020; Defendant’s responses are not yet due 26 Defendant propounded the following written discovery to Plaintiff: 27 1. 28 LAW “ Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents,” which were served 12 15 T HE Defendant served “City of Henderson’s First Supplement to Its Initial Disclosures” OFFICES “Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Daniel S. King,” which were served by mail on February 26, 2020; Plaintiff served OF R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K A PR O FE SSIO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N 8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E SU IT E 200 LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123 Page 2 of 6 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 35 34 Filed 05/21/20 05/20/20 Page 3 of 6 1 “Objections and Responses to Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Requests for Production 2 of Documents to Plaintiff Daniel S. King” on May 8, 2020, and, subsequently, “Amended Objections 3 and Responses to Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents 4 to Plaintiff Daniel S. King” on May 15, 2020; and 5 2. 6 King,” which also were served by mail on February 26, 2020; Plaintiff served “Objections to 7 Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Daniel S. King,” on May 8, 8 2020, and “Objections and Responses to Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Interrogatories 9 to Plaintiff Daniel S. King,” on May 15, 2020. 10 The parties currently are in discussions over disputes regarding the discovery responses. It 11 is premature to determine whether or not these disputes can be resolved without court intervention. 12 2. Plaintiff intends to take the following depositions: 14 1. David Burns; 15 2. Joe Cabanban; 16 3. Michael Denning; 17 4. Wendy Medura Krincek, Esq.; and 18 5. Latesha Watson; 19 Names made be added to, or omitted from, this list, based on depositions taken and the review of the document production. 21 LAW DISCOVERY YET TO BE COMPLETED: 13 20 T HE “Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Daniel S. Defendant intends to take the deposition of Plaintiff Daniel S. King and may schedule other 22 depositions following a review of Plaintiff’s responses received to its discovery requests. 23 3. REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED: 24 The parties got a late start on the discovery process due Plaintiff initially filing his complaint 25 pro se. The stipulated discovery plan was filed six weeks into the originally-requested 180-day 26 discovery period. Only four months remained of the original discovery period by the time the parties 27 made their respective initial disclosures. While the parties understood that a 180-day likely would 28 be insufficient because of the large number of potential witnesses to be deposed, the parties decided OFFICES OF R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K A PR O FE SSIO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N 8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E SU IT E 200 LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123 Page 3 of 6 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 35 34 Filed 05/21/20 05/20/20 Page 4 of 6 1 to opt for the standard 180-day discovery period at the onset and to request additional time based on 2 what has transpired. 3 Discovery has not been completed due to a number of issues that have arisen: 4 1. 5 affected law firms, governmental agencies, and the courts, has slowed down the discovery process 6 in this case. Work has proceeded on this case throughout the shutdown period, but it has proceeded 7 much more slowly than it would have during ordinary times. 8 2. LAW Defendant filed “Defendant City of Henderson’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the 9 Alternative, for a Stay Pending Arbitration” (ECF No. 9) on October 14, 2019. In response, Plaintiff 10 filed not only an opposition (ECF No. 17), but also “Plaintiff’s Countermotion for Leave of Court 11 to File First Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 18). Defendant withdrew its motion to compel 12 arbitration aspect of “Defendant City of Henderson’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for 13 a Stay Pending Arbitration” (ECF No. 29). However, the underlying motion to dismiss the matter 14 on the merits, and the countermotion for leave to amend, are still pending before this Court. Because 15 of the pending dispositive motion, Defendant has not filed an answer or enunciated defenses. The 16 fact that Defendant has not yet filed an Answer, along with the fact that there has not yet been a 17 ruling on Plaintiff’s countermotion for leave to amend his complaint, means that the parties have not 18 yet fully established the claims and defenses that are at issue in this matter. In particular, whether 19 the Court allows Plaintiff to proceed on a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which is a claim 20 that was newly-pled in the proposed First Amended Complaint, will substantially affect the scope 21 of depositions in this case. The resolution of this countermotion also will affect one of the discovery 22 issues that the parties are discussing that has arisen from “Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for 23 Production of Documents” and Defendant’s responses to that set of requests. 24 T HE The limited shutdown of operations due to the COVID-19 coronavirus, which has 3. A large number of individuals with knowledge of the material allegations in the 25 complaint were identified by Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Once Defendant files 26 its answer and identifies its defenses, and once written responses to the discovery requests made 27 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 are made, the number of individuals who may need to be deposed may 28 expand beyond that set forth above. OFFICES OF R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K A PR O FE SSIO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N 8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E SU IT E 200 LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123 Page 4 of 6 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 35 34 Filed 05/21/20 05/20/20 Page 5 of 6 1 4. REVISED DISCOVERY PLAN: 2 1. Discovery Cut-Off Date: September 10, 2020. 3 2. Dispositive Motions: The date for filing dispositive motions shall be not later than 4 October 13, 2020, 30 days after the discovery cut-off date.1 In the event that the discovery period 5 is extended from the discovery cut-off date set forth in this Stipulation and Order to Extend 6 Discovery (Second Request), the date for filing dispositive motions shall be extended for the same 7 duration, to be not later than 30 days from the subsequent discovery cut-off date. 8 3. Pretrial Order: The date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be not later than 9 November 12, 2020, 30 days after the date set for filing dispositive motions. In the event that 10 dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 11 days after decision on the dispositive motions or until further order of the court. 12 4. Additional Extensions of the Discovery Period: The last day for the parties to file 13 their Motion and/or Stipulation to Extend Discovery shall be August 20, 2020, twenty (21) days 14 prior to the revised discovery cut-off. 15 5. Any discovery deadline not extended in accordance with the Revised Discovery Plan 16 set forth above shall remain controlled by the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF 17 No. 23), as approved by the Court on December 3, 2019. 18 .... 19 .... 20 .... 21 .... 22 .... 23 .... 24 .... 25 .... 26 1 27 October 10, 2020, the thirtieth day following the end of the discovery period, is a Saturday. With Monday, October 12, 2020, being a federal holiday, the deadline would be moved to Tuesday, October 13, 2020. 28 T HE LAW OFFICES OF R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K A PR O FE SSIO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N 8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E SU IT E 200 LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123 Page 5 of 6 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 35 34 Filed 05/21/20 05/20/20 Page 6 of 6 1 No trial date has yet been ordered. 2 3 DATED: May 20, 2020. DATED: May 20, 2020. 4 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. SPRETNAK CITY OF HENDERSON 5 By: /s/ Robert P. Spretnak Robert P. Spretnak, Esq. By: /s/ Brian R. Reeve Nicholas G. Vaskov, Esq. Brian R. Reeve, Esq. Kristina E. Gilmore, Esq. 6 Attorney for Plaintiff 7 8275 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 8 Attorneys for Defendant 240 Water Street, MSC 144 Henderson, Nevada 89015 9 IT IS SO ORDERED IS SO ORDERED. 2020 DATED: MayIT21, _______________________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE __________________________________________________ BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T HE LAW OFFICES OF R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K A PR O FE SSIO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N 8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E SU IT E 200 LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123 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.
