Gonzalez v. Baker et al, No. 2:2020cv01879 - Document 20 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting 19 Stipulation - Discovery due by 11/13/2021. Motions due by 12/13/2021. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/13/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 9/27/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gonzalez v. Baker et al Doc. 20 Case 2:20-cv-01879-JCM-DJA Document 19 Filed 09/24/21 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AARON D. FORD Attorney General NATHAN C. HOLLAND, Bar No. 15247 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1254 E-mail: NHolland@ag.nv.gov Attorney for Defendants Renee Baker, Tara Carpenter, Dwayne Baze, Maria Ward, Francisco Bautista, Valaree Olivas, and Stephen Clark 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 DAVID A. GONZALEZ, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01879-JCM-DJA 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 RENEE BAKER, TARA L. CARPENTER; DWAYNE L. BAZE; MARIA WARD; FRANCISCO BAUTISTA; VALAREE C. OLIVAS; and STEPHEN P. CLARK; collectively, 18 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Fourth Request) Defendants. 19 20 21 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(1)(A), LR IA 6-1, and LR 26-3, Defendants RENEE 22 BAKER, TARA L. CARPENTER, DWAYNE L. BAZE, MARIA WARD, FRANCISCO 23 BAUTISTA, VALAREE C. OLIVAS, and STEPHEN P. CLARK (collectively, “Defendants”), by 24 and through their counsel, AARON D. FORD, Attorney General, and Deputy Attorney General 25 Nathan C. Holland, Esq., and Plaintiff DAVID A. GONZALEZ (“Plaintiff”), by and through the law 26 offices of GALLIAN WELKER & BECKSTROM, L.C., hereby submit this Stipulation and Order to 27 Extend Discovery Deadline (Fourth Request). 28 /// Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-01879-JCM-DJA Document 19 Filed 09/24/21 Page 2 of 7 1 This is the fourth stipulation to extend the discovery deadline (the third request having been 2 denied by the Court without prejudice, for failure to address the issue of excusable neglect for a 3 request made after expiration of the relevant deadline). For the foregoing reasons and as is more fully 4 explained below, the Parties respectfully request that this Court extend the discovery and associated 5 deadlines in this matter. 6 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 7 1. On October 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [ECF No. 1], initiating this action. 8 2. Over the course of time from around October 13, 2020, to December 16, 2020, 9 Defendants were variously served, or, as applicable, service was waived [see ECF Nos. 5, 7, and 8]. 10 3. On November 1, 2020, the Parties submitted their Stipulation and Order to Extend Time 11 to File Answer [ECF No. 4], which was accepted and ordered by the Court on November 17, 2020 [ECF 12 No. 6]. 13 4. On January 15, 2021, Defendants filed their Answer [ECF No. 9]. 14 5. On January 29, 2021, the Parties filed their Joint Conference Report and Stipulated 15 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order [ECF No. 10], which was accepted and ordered by the Court on 16 February 1, 2021 [ECF No. 11]. 17 18 6. Deadline [ECF No. 13]. 19 20 7. On June 17, 2021, the Court issued an order granting the Stipulation and Order to Extend the Discovery Deadline [ECF No. 14]. 21 22 On June 16, 2021, the Parties filed their Stipulation and Order to Extend the Discovery 8. On August 16, 2021, the Parties filed their Stipulation and Order to Extend the Discovery Deadline (Second Request) [ECF No. 15]. 23 9. On August 17, 2021, the Court issued an order granting the Stipulation and Order to 24 Extend the Discovery Deadline (Second Request), extending, inter alia, the discovery deadline until 25 September 13, 2021 [ECF No. 16]. 26 10. On September 22, 2021, the Parties filed their Stipulation and Order to Extend the 27 Discovery Deadline (Third Request) [ECF No. 17]. 28 /// Page 2 of 6 Case 2:20-cv-01879-JCM-DJA Document 19 Filed 09/24/21 Page 3 of 7 1 11. On September 23, 2021, the Court denied without prejudice the Stipulation and Order 2 to Extend the Discovery Deadline (Third Request), for failure to address the issue of excusable 3 neglect for a request made after expiration of the relevant deadline [ECF No. 18]. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant part, that 6 “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend 7 the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the 8 original time or its extension expires.” 9 procedure is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup v. 10 Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An extension of time may always 11 be sought and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) 12 of the Rule. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). Also, a district court possesses 13 the inherent power to control its own docket. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 14 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). If additional time for any purpose is needed, the proper 15 LR IA 6-1 additionally requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the 16 extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the specified period 17 unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired resulted 18 because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to extend any date set by the discovery 19 plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, 20 demonstrate good cause for the extension, and such a motion filed after the expiration of the deadline 21 will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to act resulted from excusable 22 neglect. 23 Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion to extend 24 a discovery deadline: (a) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific description 25 of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or 26 the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) 27 a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 28 /// Page 3 of 6 Case 2:20-cv-01879-JCM-DJA Document 19 Filed 09/24/21 Page 4 of 7 1 2 III. ARGUMENT A. The Four Factors Contained Within LR 26-3 Are Satisfied, and the Parties Show 3 Good Cause for Modifying the Scheduling Order, Which Good Cause Further Demonstrates 4 that the Failure to Timely Request the Extension Was the Result of Excusable Neglect. 5 1. Discovery Completed to Date: 6 On February 12, 2021, pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(1), the Parties exchanged their 7 respective initial disclosures of persons likely to have discoverable information; documents, 8 electronically stored information, and tangible things; computation of damages, and applicable 9 insurance coverage. 10 11 12 On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff responded to all of Defendants’ interrogatories and supplemented his initial disclosures. 2. Discovery Remaining: 13 Plaintiff and Defendants have propounded written discovery to the respective parties. 14 Defendants have yet to respond to any of the Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests 15 for Production of Documents. No additional discovery is anticipated or likely to be propounded by 16 the respective parties. 17 3. Reasons Why Deadline Was Not Satisfied or Remaining Discovery 18 Cannot Be Completed Within Current Time Limits and Why the Failure to Timely Request the 19 Extension Was the Result of Excusable Neglect: 20 As was noted in the Parties first Stipulation to Extend the Discovery Deadline, the Deputy 21 Attorney General originally assigned to this case, Mr. Alexander J. Smith, Esq., was admitted to 22 limited practice in Nevada, and as a result of same, was required to take the July 2021 Nevada Bar 23 Exam. Primarily for this reason, the initial extension was stipulated to move the discovery deadline 24 to August 13, 2021, after the July 2021 Nevada Bar Exam. During that timeframe, in which Mr. 25 Smith was on leave to prepare for the exam, this matter was reassigned internally in the Office of the 26 Attorney General (“OAG”), affording minimal time for new counsel to research and respond to 27 discovery, thus necessitating the second Stipulation to Extend the Discovery Deadline, which only 28 minimally extended the deadline until September 13, 2021. Overlaying this entire timeframe and Page 4 of 6 Case 2:20-cv-01879-JCM-DJA Document 19 Filed 09/24/21 Page 5 of 7 1 process, during the past couple of months, the Public Safety Division of the OAG has had multiple 2 Deputy Attorney Generals and support staff leave the division. As a result, cases are being reassigned 3 (and often re-reassigned) on a temporary basis while the OAG attempts to fill the open positions. As 4 a result of the significant turnover, counsel for Defendants was unable to complete discovery in this 5 matter. Even so, counsel anticipated being able to timely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery, and, by 6 the time it became evident that a timely response would not be possible, the deadline had passed, and 7 the third Stipulation to Extend the Discovery Deadline was filed untimely. 8 circumstance in the OAG demonstrates excusable neglect under LR 26-3, and mandates an additional 9 extension of time. As counsel for Defendants is scheduled annual leave from September 30, 2021, to 10 October 11, 2021, and has a significant number of responsibilities that require resolution prior to 11 departure, Defendants now request this Court extend the deadline to complete discovery from 12 September 13, 2021, to November 13, 2021, and extend the deadline for dispositive motions from 13 October 13, 2021, to December 13, 2021. Both Plaintiff and Defendants continue to diligently 14 prosecute and defend this action, respectively, and believe it is in the interests of justice that this 15 stipulation is granted. Neither Party will be prejudiced by this brief extension of the various 16 deadlines. 4. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery: 17 18 Event 19 Discovery Cutoff 20 This difficult Current Deadlines Proposed New Deadlines September 13, 2021 November 13, 2021 Dispositive Motion Deadline October 13, 2021 December 13, 2021 Joint Pretrial Order Deadline November 13, 2021 January 13, 2022* 21 22 23 24 * In the event a dispositive motion is under submission by December 13, 2021, the Joint Pre-Trial 25 Order shall be due no later than 30 days after entry of the Court’s order ruling on same. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Page 5 of 6 Case 2:20-cv-01879-JCM-DJA Document 19 Filed 09/24/21 Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 All other discovery dates not referenced herein remain the same as listed in the February 1, 2021, Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED this 24th day of September 2021. DATED this 24th day of September 2021. GALLIAN WELKER & BECKSTROM, L.C. AARON D. FORD, Attorney General /s/ Nathan E. Lawrence Nathan E. Lawrence, SBN 15060 Travis N. Barrick, SBN 9257 540 E. St. Louis Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Telephone: (702) 892-3500 nlawrence@vegascase.com Attorneys for Plaintiff David A. Gonzalez /s/Nathan C. Holland NATHAN C. HOLLAND, Bar No. 15247 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1254 E-mail: NHolland@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 DATED: September 27, 2021 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 6 of 6 Case 2:20-cv-01879-JCM-DJA Document 19 Filed 09/24/21 Page 7 of 7 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, and 3 that on this 24th day of September, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing STIPULATION AND 4 ORDER TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 5 (Fourth Request), via this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties who are registered with this 6 Court’s electronic filing system will be served electronically. 7 8 9 10 11 Nathan E. Lawrence Travis N. Barrick GALLIAN WELKER & BECKSTROM 540 East St. Louis Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Email: nlawrence@vegascase.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 13 14 /s/ Connie L. Fondi An employee of the Office of the Nevada Attorney General 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 7 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.
