Rueckl v. InMode, Ltd., No. 2:2019cv02186 - Document 55 (D. Nev. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 54 Stipulated Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/22/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rueckl v. InMode, Ltd. Doc. 55 Case 2:19-cv-02186-KJD-NJK Document 55 Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 David B. Owens California Bar No. 275030 david@loevy.com Loevy & Loevy 100 S. King St., Ste 100 Seattle, WA 98104 Counsel for Plaintiff Paul Browning Luke A. Busby, ESQ Nevada Bar No. 10319 Luke Andrew Busby, Ltd. 316 California Ave # 82 Reno, Nevada 89509 luke@lukeandrewbusbyltd.com Designated Resident Nevada Counsel for Plaintiff 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS) 13 14 Case No. 2:20-CV-01381 PAUL LEWIS BROWNING, 15 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER 16 17 18 v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., 19 Hon. Kent J. Dawson Hon. Cam Ferenbach Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The parties held a planning meeting under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and agreed to this report on December 21, 2020. David B. Owens participated for Plaintiff, and Craig Anderson participated for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), and the individually named defendants who have been served to date (the LVMPD Defendants). 1. A short statement of the nature of the case: 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-02186-KJD-NJK Document 55 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 6 1 Plaintiff Paul Browning alleges that the LVMPD and the individual 2 Defendants caused him to be wrongfully convicted—and given a capital sentence 3 where he sat on death row for more than three decades—for a crime he did not 4 commit. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Defendants suppressed 5 exculpatory evidence and also fabricated evidence in violation of Browning’s right to 6 due process. Plaintiff further alleges that his wrongful conviction was also pursuant 7 to and caused by the policies, practices, and customs of the LVMPD. 8 9 Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has alleged violations of his constitutional rights as well as claims under Nevada state law. 10 Defendants deny liability on all of Plaintiff’s claims. 11 2. 12 Statement of subjects of discovery and the principal factual and legal disputes in this case: • 13 convicted violation of his constitutional rights. 14 • 15 • 17 the constitutional violations alleged by Plaintiff; 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 Whether Defendant LVMPD’s policies, procedures, customs, practices, training, or failures to have any of the former, caused 18 24 Whether the individual Defendants are liable under Nevada State Law on Plaintiff’s sate-law claims. 16 23 Whether the individual Defendants caused Plaintiff to be 3. • Any other allegations included in Plaintiff’s Complaint; • Any affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants; and • The damages suffered by Plaintiff. Statement of Jurisdiction: This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and has jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 4. Any parties who have not been served and an explanation why they have not been served; and any parties which have been served but have not answered or otherwise appeared: 2 Case 2:19-cv-02186-KJD-NJK Document 55 Filed 12/22/20 Page 3 of 6 Defendant Sgt. Curtis Albert has not been served, and it is unclear whether 1 2 or not Defendant Albert is deceased. Defendants Burt Levos, H. Oren, R. Robertson, 3 and T. Rosen are believed to be deceased, and Plaintiff is still investigating whether 4 any of these defendants have any open Estates or should whether representatives 5 6 should be appointed on their behalf. 5. 7 8 A statement whether any party expects to add additional parties to the case or otherwise amend the pleadings: The parties do not anticipate any additional parties at this time, but may 9 otherwise seek to amend the pleadings, depending on whether new information 10 11 comes to light through discovery and investigation. 6. 12 A list of contemplated motions and a statement of issues to be decided by these motions: 13 None at this time. 14 7. 15 There are no pending related cases. 16 8. 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pre-discovery disclosures: The parties will exchange their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by January 29, 18 19 The status of related cases pending before other courts or other judges of this court: 2021. 9. Discovery plan: a. Discovery cut-off: The first defendants Answered on October 19, 2020. Dkt. 25. The parties propose a discovery cut-off of 300 days from this date, or Monday, October 18, 2021. The parties seek to extend the deadline contemplated by Local Rule 26-1(b)(1) because of the delays and difficulties that COVID-19 has already imposed in this case, and because counsel expects that COVID-19 will continue to impose delays and difficulties with depositions, traveling for depositions and due to the fact witnesses and parties in this case are spread throughout the United States. 3 Case 2:19-cv-02186-KJD-NJK Document 55 Filed 12/22/20 Page 4 of 6 b. 1 2 3 The deadline for filing a motion to amend the pleadings or to add parties is 90 days before the close of discovery, or Monday, May 17, 2021. c. 4 5 Deadline for amending the pleadings or adding parties: Dates for complete disclosure of expert testimony: The deadline for expert disclosures is 60 days before the discovery cut-off, or 6 June 16, 2021. The deadline for disclosure of rebuttal experts is 30 days after the 7 initial disclosure, or Wednesday, January 27, 2020. d. 8 9 10 The deadline for the filing of dispositive motions is 30 days after the discovery cut-off, or Tuesday, September 13, 2021. 11 e. 12 13 14 17 18 motion deadline, or Thursday October 14, 2021. f. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order. Depositions: The parties shall be entitled to conduct depositions of the (a) parties, (b) individuals identified as potential witnesses pursuant to Rule 26(a), and (c) 10 additional depositions. g. 19 20 The date by which the parties shall file the joint pretrial order: The deadline for the joint pretrial order is 30 days after the dispositive- 15 16 Deadline for the filing of dispositive motions: Interrogatories: There shall be a maximum of 25 interrogatories by each party to any other party, subject to further agreement by the parties to send additional interrogatories. 10. Electronically stored information (ESI): Discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) will be handled through an ESI protocol, which the parties will submit by August 7, 2020. The protocol will lay out any areas of disagreement that the parties have regarding ESI discovery. 11. Protective order: 28 4 Case 2:19-cv-02186-KJD-NJK Document 55 Filed 12/22/20 Page 5 of 6 1 2 The parties anticipate proposing a stipulated confidentiality order to cover production of documents with protected, sensitive, or other confidential information. 3 12. Privileged information and work product: 4 The parties anticipate that there will be some information that is privileged 5 and/or protected by work product. The parties will produce privilege logs where 6 necessary. 7 13. 8 The parties anticipate engaging in alternative dispute resolution at some 9 Alternative dispute resolution (ADR): point as the litigation progresses. 10 14. 11 The parties decline to consent to trial by a magistrate judge or the use of the 12 Alternative forms of case disposition: Short Trial Program. 13 15. 14 Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. The parties estimate a length of trial of 5- 15 Whether jury trial requested and estimated length: 10 days. 16 16. Electronic evidence: 17 The parties have discussed whether they intend to present evidence in 18 electronic format to jurors. The parties anticipate presenting evidence in electronic 19 format, and will work with the Court to ensure that they are able to present such 20 evidence in a format compatible with the Court’s electronic jury evidence display 21 system. 22 23 24 Dated: December 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted, IT IS SO ORDERED. Loevy & Loevy 25 26 27 28 By: s/ David B. Owens ___________________________________ Cam Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge Attorney for Plaintiff Paul Browning 12-22-2020 Dated:_____________________________ 5 Case 2:19-cv-02186-KJD-NJK Document 55 Filed 12/22/20 Page 6 of 6 1 Marquis Aurbach Coffing 2 3 By: s/ Craig R. Anderson 4 Bar No: 6882 Attorney for Defendants and Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Horn, Radcliffe, Branon, Jolley, Bunker, and Leonard 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David B. Owens, an attorney, hereby certify that on December 21, 2020, I 12 filed the foregoing document using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which effected 13 service on all counsel of record. 14 s/ David B. Owens Attorney for Plaintiff Paul Browning 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
