King v. City of Henderson, No. 2:2019cv01129 - Document 41 (D. Nev. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER granting 39 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Third Request) re 23 Order. Discovery due by 12/9/2020. Motions due by 2/8/2021. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/10/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 8/20/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Download PDF

King v. City of Henderson Doc. 41 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 08/19/20 Page 1 of 7 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 21 September 10, 2020, be continued for a period of ninety (90) days up to and including December 22 9, 2020. This is the third extension to the discovery period that has been requested in this matter. 23 The 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 ) ) (Third 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 7 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 08/19/20 Page 2 of 7 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. Plaintiff 3 served his Fourth Supplement to Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures on August 4, 2020. 4 2. 5 on March 10, 2020. Defendant served “City of Henderson’s Second Supplement to Its Initial 6 Disclosures” on March 18, 2020. 7 The parties entered into a Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 32), which was approved by 8 this Court on March 3, 2020. An agreement on the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order was a 9 prerequisite for full production of requested and relevant documentation in this case, as relevant 10 material in this case would include the contents of public employee personnel files and internal 11 affairs investigations of the City of Henderson Police Department. 12 Plaintiff propounded the following written discovery to Defendant: 13 1. by mail on January 17, 2020, and amended on January 18, 2020; Defendant served “City of 15 Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s Amended First Set of Requests for Production of Documents” 16 on March 10, 2020; 2. “Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories,” which were served by mail on January 18, 18 2020; Defendant served “City of Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories” 19 on February 20, 2020; 20 3. “Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions,” which were served by mail on 21 April 3, 2020; Defendant served “City of Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests 22 for Admissions” on April 30, 2020; 23 4. “Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents,” which were served 24 by mail on April 3, 2020; Defendant served “City of Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second 25 Set of Requests for Production of Documents” on April 30, 2020; and 26 LAW “ Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents,” which were served 14 17 T HE Defendant served “City of Henderson’s First Supplement to Its Initial Disclosures” 5. “Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents,” which were served 27 by mail on April 20, 2020; Defendant served “City of Henderson’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second 28 Set of Requests for Production of Documents” on May 20, 2020. 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 2 of 7 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 08/19/20 Page 3 of 7 1 Defendant propounded the following written discovery to Plaintiff: 2 1. 3 to Plaintiff Daniel S. King,” which were served by mail on February 26, 2020; Plaintiff served 4 “Objections and Responses to Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Requests for Production 5 of Documents to Plaintiff Daniel S. King” on May 8, 2020, and, subsequently, “Amended Objections 6 and Responses to Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents 7 to Plaintiff Daniel S. King” on May 15, 2020; and 8 2. King,” which also were served by mail on February 26, 2020; Plaintiff served “Objections to 10 Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Daniel S. King,” on May 8, 11 2020, and “Objections and Responses to Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Interrogatories 12 to Plaintiff Daniel S. King,” on May 15, 2020. 3. 14 “Defendant City of Henderson’s Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Daniel S. King,” which were served on August 10, 2020. Plaintiff’s objections and responses are not yet due. 15 LAW “Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Daniel S. 9 13 T HE “Defendant City of Henderson’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents 4. On August 6, 2020, Defendant provided notice to Plaintiff of its intent to serve 16 subpoenae duces tecum on the custodians of records for the following health care providers: (1) 17 Keith G. Boman, M.D., of Davita Medical Group/Wellhealth Quality Care; (2) Abraham Fakhouri, 18 M.D., of Nevada Family Care & Wellness Center; (3) Prem K. Kittusamy, M.D.; and (4) Kelly 19 Rowe, F.N.P., of Nevada Family Care & Wellness Center. On August 10, 2020, the notice was 20 amended and an additional subpoena duces tecum was added to the custodian of records for the 21 following health care provider: Cres Miranda, M.D. These third-party subpoenae were issued for 22 the purpose of obtaining medical records of Plaintiff related to the pending matter. Defendant set 23 the response date for each subpoena duces tecum as August 26, 2020. 24 2. DISCOVERY YET TO BE COMPLETED: 25 Plaintiff intends to take the following depositions: 26 1. David Burns; 27 2. Joe Cabanban; 28 3. Michael Denning; 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 7 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 08/19/20 Page 4 of 7 1 4. Wendy Medura Krincek, Esq.; and 2 5. Latesha Watson; 3 Names made be added to, or omitted from, this list, based on depositions taken and the 4 review of the document production. 5 Defendant intends to take the deposition of Plaintiff Daniel S. King and may schedule other 6 depositions following a review of Plaintiff’s responses received to its discovery requests. 7 3. REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED: 8 The parties got a late start on the discovery process due Plaintiff initially filing his complaint 9 pro se. The stipulated discovery plan was filed six weeks into the originally-requested 180-day 10 discovery period. Only four months remained of the original discovery period by the time the parties 11 made their respective initial disclosures. While the parties understood that a 180-day likely would 12 be insufficient because of the large number of potential witnesses to be deposed, the parties decided 13 to opt for the standard 180-day discovery period at the onset and to request additional time based on 14 what has transpired. 15 Discovery has not been completed due to a number of issues that have arisen: 16 1. 17 affected law firms, governmental agencies, and the courts, has slowed down the discovery process 18 in this case. Work has proceeded on this case throughout the shutdown period, but it has proceeded 19 much more slowly than it would have during ordinary times. 20 2. Alternative, for a Stay Pending Arbitration” (ECF No. 9) on October 14, 2019. In response, Plaintiff 22 filed not only an opposition (ECF No. 17), but also “Plaintiff’s Countermotion for Leave of Court 23 to File First Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 18). a. Defendant withdrew its motion to compel arbitration aspect of “Defendant 25 City of Henderson’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a Stay Pending Arbitration” (ECF 26 No. 29). 27 b. 28 LAW Defendant filed “Defendant City of Henderson’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the 21 24 T HE The limited shutdown of operations due to the COVID-19 coronavirus, which has OFFICES On July 2, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Brenda N. Weksler issued her Report and Recommendations regarding the pending motion (ECF No. 36). In the Report and 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 7 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 08/19/20 Page 5 of 7 1 Recommendations, it was recommended to the presiding United States District Court Judge that 2 Plaintiff be allowed to proceed on his first claim for relief (unlawful skin color-based discrimination 3 in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)) and his third claim for relief (unlawful skin color-based 4 discrimination in violation of NRS 613.330(1). It was further recommended that Plaintiff’s second 5 claim for relief (unlawful retaliation) be dismissed without prejudice with leave granted to amend. 6 Finally, it was recommended that Plaintiff’s countermotion for leave to amend be denied, as the 7 proposed fourth claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 was futile. 8 c. 9 Recommendations (ECF No. 37). The Court allowed Plaintiff until August 10, 2020, to file an 10 amended complaint to correct any deficiencies related to the second claim for relief, for unlawful 11 retaliation. 12 d. On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14 e. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is due on 15 August 20, 2020. 16 f. 13 38). 17 3. A large number of individuals with knowledge of the material allegations in the 19 complaint were identified by Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Once Defendant files 20 its answer and identifies its defenses, and once written responses to the discovery requests made 21 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 are made, the number of individuals who may need to be deposed may 22 expand beyond that set forth above. 23 4. Plaintiff has had very limited availability during the last two months, both because 24 of increased work demands and because of his continuing to obtain a promotion to sergeant. Testing 25 and interviews for the promotion were set for the month of August and the first few day of 26 September 2020. 27 5. 28 LAW The additional time requested will allow the parties to conduct discovery on matters newly asserted in the Second Amended Complaint and Defendant’s response thereto. 18 T HE On July 21, 2020, this Court entered its Order Adopting Report and OFFICES The parties were involved in extensive discussions to resolve discovery disputes over responses to written discovery. It appears at the present time that the matters have been resolved or 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 7 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 08/19/20 Page 6 of 7 1 soon will be resolved without the need for motions to be filed, although that is subject to change. 2 4. 3 1. Discovery Cut-Off Date: December 9, 2020. 4 2. Dispositive Motions: The date for filing dispositive motions shall be not later than 5 February 8, 2021. This date is 60 days after the new discovery cut-off date. This additional time 6 is to place the deadline past the holiday period. 7 3. forth in this Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (Third Request), the date for filing 9 dispositive motions shall be extended for the same duration, to be not later than 30 days from the subsequent discovery cut-off date. 11 4. Pretrial Order: The date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be not later than 12 March 10, 2021, 30 days after the date set for filing dispositive motions. In the event that 13 dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 14 days after decision on the dispositive motions or until further order of the court. 15 5. Additional Extensions of the Discovery Period: The last day for the parties to file 16 their Motion and/or Stipulation to Extend Discovery shall be November 18, 2020, 21 days prior to 17 the revised discovery cut-off. 18 LAW In the event that the discovery period is extended from the discovery cut-off date set 8 10 T HE REVISED DISCOVERY PLAN: 6. Any discovery deadline not extended in accordance with the Revised Discovery Plan 19 set forth above shall remain controlled by the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF 20 No. 23), as approved by the Court on December 3, 2019. 21 .... 22 .... 23 .... 24 .... 25 .... 26 .... 27 .... 28 .... 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 7 Case 2:19-cv-01129-JAD-BNW Document 39 Filed 08/19/20 Page 7 of 7 1 No trial date has yet been ordered. 2 3 DATED: August 19, 2020. DATED: August 19, 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 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED 14 DATED: 5:56 pm, AugustUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20, 2020 15 _______________________________________________ 16 _________________________________ BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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 7 of 7

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.