Devore v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al, No. 2:2022cv01045 - Document 44 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 43 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Plan Deadlines. Discovery due by 12/5/2023. Motions due by 1/3/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/2/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 6/8/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Devore v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al Doc. 44 1 Marquis Aurbach Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14246 10001 Park Run Drive 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 5 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 canderson@maclaw.com 6 jnichols@maclaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan 7 Police Department, Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Lt. Kurt McKenzie, Officer Sonny Uranich, and Officer 8 Patrick Weslowski 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH 11 ALEXANDRIA DEVORE, an individual, 13 Plaintiff, vs. 14 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a municipal corporation; 15 SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO, an individual; LIEUTENANT KURT 16 MCKENZIE, an individual, SONNY URANICH, an individual, PATRICK 17 WESLOWSKI, an individual, UNKNOWN OFFICERS 3-12, individuals, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Case Number: 22-cv-01045-CDS-BNW STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST) Plaintiff Alexandria Devore (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record, 21 Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of 22 McLetchie Law, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the 23 “Department” or “LVMPD”), Sheriff Joseph Lombardo (“Lombardo”), Lieutenant Kurt 24 McKenzie (“McKenzie”), Officer Sonny Uranich (“Uranich”) and Officer Patrick Weslowski 25 (“Weslowski”), collectively (“LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, 26 Craig R. Anderson, Esq. and Jackie V. Nichols, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate 27 and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines an additional one 28 Page 1 of 8 MAC:14687-421 5112520_1 6/6/2023 4:02 PM Dockets.Justia.com 1 hundred twenty (120) days. This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes 2 of delay (supplemented information noted in bold-face type). 3 I. STATUS OF DISCOVERY. 4 A. PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY. 5 1. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 6 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 7 2. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 8 Department - Set One dated October 26, 2022. 9 3. Plaintiff’s Request for Production to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 10 Department - Set One dated October 28, 2022. 4. Plaintiff Alexandria Devore's Requests for Production to LVMPD - Set 12 Two dated May 16, 2023. 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH 11 13 B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY. 14 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant 15 to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 3, 2022. 16 2. LVMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Interrogatories - Set One 17 dated November 28, 2023. 18 3. LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 19 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated November 30, 2022. 20 4. LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 21 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1), dated December 7, 2022. 22 5. LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore’s Request for Production 23 - Set One dated December 7, 2022. 24 6. LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Alexandria Devore 25 dated April 21, 2023. 26 7. LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff 27 Alexandria Devore dated April 21, 2023. 28 Page 2 of 8 MAC:14687-421 5112520_1 6/6/2023 4:02 PM 1 II. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. 2 The Parties are actively conducting discovery. The Parties are working on depositions 3 of named parties and witnesses. For the reasons explained below, the Parties will need 4 additional time to propound written discovery, respond to written discovery, conduct 5 depositions, and disclose experts. 6 III. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the extension 8 requested. This is the first request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this matter. The 9 Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a deadline set 10 forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than 21 days before the 12 by a showing of good cause. Further, requests made after the expiration of the subject deadline 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH 11 expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 21 days must be supported 13 will not be granted unless the Parties demonstrate that the failure to act was the result of 14 excusable neglect. Here, most of the deadlines the Parties seek to extend are outside of the 2115 day window, the deadline for initial expert disclosures, however, has passed. As such, the 16 excusable neglect applies to the deadline for initial expert disclosures. 17 The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct 18 discovery. The Parties are working on scheduling the depositions of named parties and 19 witnesses. LVMPD Defendants have discovery responses due on June 19, 2023. Additionally, 20 Plaintiff has sought relief (ECF No. 38) from the Court’s May 19, 2023, Order (ECF No. 37) 21 and also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to name previously 22 unidentified Doe Officers and add additional causes of action (ECF No. 39). As such, the 23 Parties will need additional time to propound written discovery, respond to written discovery, 24 continue to resolve outstanding discovery disputes, and conduct depositions. The Parties 25 contend an extension of discovery deadlines enables them to continue to conduct necessary 26 discovery so that this matter is fairly resolved and give the experts the opportunity to review 27 all discovery produced in this dispute. 28 Page 3 of 8 MAC:14687-421 5112520_1 6/6/2023 4:02 PM 1 Finally, the Parties together request this in good faith and to further the resolution of 2 this complicated case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. 3 As noted above, the good cause analysis is proper for the majority of dates the Parties 4 seek to extend, however, this request is being made after the expiration of the initial and 5 rebuttal expert disclosures, to which the “excusable neglect” standard is the appropriate 6 standard. 7 The Parties meet both the good cause and excusable neglect standard. “Good cause to 8 extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 9 party seeking the extension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 10 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108235, 2013 WL 3975764, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting Johnson 12 (providing that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH 11 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 13 employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 14 determination of every action and proceeding”). 15 As the procedural history of this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in 16 litigating this matter. The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to 17 conduct discovery but an extension is still needed to efficiently continue discovery and 18 manage the case. Plaintiff recently sought leave to file her Second Amended Complaint, which 19 named defendants and added additional claims. Given the recent identification of officers 20 involved in incidents set forth in the Complaint, the Parties require additional time to conduct 21 further discovery and investigate the matter. 22 Additionally, counsel for the Parties in this matter are litigating several other unrelated 23 matters against each other which are well-advanced and have competing demands, and while 24 competing demands of litigation are merely one of many reasons for the instant request, it 25 should be noted that the other litigation between the same counsel involving similar issues can 26 only benefit from expanded discovery so that in other litigation, similar requests can be 27 expedited because they may have been done at least in part in this case; in this case, it would 28 be a matter of a universal benefit to the ends of justice and future efficiencies. In addition, Page 4 of 8 MAC:14687-421 5112520_1 6/6/2023 4:02 PM 1 counsel for the Parties are in the preliminary stages of settlement discussions regarding this 2 and other matters being litigated stemming from the Black Lives Matter Protests. Finally, 3 counsel for Plaintiff is preparing for a trial in July that requires significant time and attention. 4 Further, counsel for Defendants is out of the jurisdiction for two (2) weeks during June, 5 compounding the need for an extension of the discovery deadlines. 6 The Parties meet the excusable neglect standard as well. There are at least four (4) 7 factors in determining whether neglect is excusable: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the 8 opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the 9 reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Erection Co. v. Archer 10 W. Contractors, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-0612-MMD-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159029, at *7 12 380, 395 (1993)). The determination of whether neglect is excusable is ultimately an equitable 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH 11 (D. Nev. Nov. 6, 2013) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 13 one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. Pioneer, 14 507 U.S. at 395. 15 In this matter, the first factor concerning prejudice to the opposing party does not 16 apply, as the Parties have agreed to stipulate to an extension of time. The three (3) remaining 17 factors also weigh in favor of finding excusable neglect. In addition to submitting this as a 18 joint stipulation, the length of delay is modest. The Parties are only now moving to extend the 19 initial expert deadline because recently uncovered facts and information has illuminated the 20 need potential utilization of experts in this matter. In terms of potential impact on the 21 proceedings, those too are minimal, particularly in light of Plaintiff’s outstanding Motion to 22 Amend Complaint and Motion for Relief and the Parties’ diligence in litigating this matter. 23 Further, discovery is moving forward in a steady pace and the Parties are continuing to 24 conduct discovery and coordinate depositions. The third factor the court considers is the 25 reason for the delay. Here, the Parties moved diligently to extend the deadlines for initial and 26 rebuttal experts once recognizing the need to potentially utilize experts in this matter. Lastly, 27 the Parties bring this request jointly in good faith and not for any purpose of delay. 28 Thus, the standards to extend all requested deadlines is satisfied here. Page 5 of 8 MAC:14687-421 5112520_1 6/6/2023 4:02 PM 1 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DEADLINES 2 3 Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline February 7, 2023 Past/Unchanged Initial Expert Disclosures March 9, 2023 September 7, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 8, 2023 October 7, 2023 August 7, 2023 December 5, 2023 September 5, 2023 January 3, 2024 October 5, 2023 February 2, 2024 (If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after the decision of the dispositive motions or further order of the Court.) Amend Pleadings and Add Parties 4 5 6 Discovery Cut-Off 7 Dispositive Motions 8 Pretrial Order 9 10 12 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 27 28 Page 6 of 8 MAC:14687-421 5112520_1 6/6/2023 4:02 PM 1 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request 2 that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended additional one hundred 3 twenty (120) days so that the parties may conduct additional discovery and conduct 4 depositions. 5 Dated this 6th day of June, 2023. Dated this 6th day of June, 2023. 6 MCLETCHIE LAW MARQUIS AURBACH By: /s/ Margaret A. McLetchie Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10931 N. Pieter O’ Leary, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15297 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12658 602 South 10th Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Alexandria Devore By: 7 8 9 10 12 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH 11 13 14 /s/ Jackie V. Nichols Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Lt. Kurt McKenzie, Officer Sonny Uranich, and Officer Patrick Weslowski 15 16 17 ORDER 8th day of ________________, June IT IS SO ORDERED this ____ 2023. 18 19 20 ___________________________________ United States District Court Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 7 of 8 MAC:14687-421 5112520_1 6/6/2023 4:02 PM 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing STIPULATION AND 3 ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER 4 DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST) with the Clerk of the Court for the United States 5 District Court by using the court’s CM/ECF system on the 6th day of June, 2023. 6 I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users 7 and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 8 I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered 9 CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, 10 or have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to 12 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH 11 the following non-CM/ECF participants: N/A 13 14 /s/ Krista Busch An employee of Marquis Aurbach 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 8 of 8 MAC:14687-421 5112520_1 6/6/2023 4:02 PM
]]>
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.
