Miller v. Clark County et al, No. 2:2023cv00070 - Document 39 (D. Nev. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER granting 38 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. IT IS SO ORDERED subject to the following modification. The parties' proposed schedule fails to include a deadline for filing their joint pretrial order. Accordingly, the deadline to file the Joint Pretrial Order is September 11, 2024. 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. Discovery due by 7/10/2024. Motions due by 8/12/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/11/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 1/31/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Miller v. Clark County et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doc. 39 SAO Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13524 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Phone: (702) 444-4444 Fax: (702) 444-4455 Email: jlee@richardharrislaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 MACK MILLER, an individual; 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, a political subdivision; DOE CLARK COUNTY OFFICERS, in their personal capacities; DOE PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS, in their personal capacities; PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; MARCO SOLORIO, individually; LEONARD MORRIS, individually; ROE PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY; DOES 1 through 20; ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 through 20, inclusive jointly and severally, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 vs. 24 PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company. 27 28 (Second Request) Cross-claimant, 23 26 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES Defendants. CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of State of Nevada, 22 25 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA Cross-defendant, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel that the discovery deadlines shall be extended in this matter. Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 2 The parties have participated in the following discovery to date: 3 1. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 4 2. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 5 3. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 6 4. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 7 5. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 8 6. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; 9 7. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 10 8. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Seventh Supplemental disclosures; 11 9. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Eighth Supplemental disclosures; 12 10. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 13 11. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 14 12. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 15 13. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 16 14. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 17 15. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 18 16. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental 19 disclosures; 20 17. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 21 18. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Preventive 22 Measures; 23 19. 24 Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Preventive Measures; 25 20. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Preventive Measures; 26 21. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set 27 28 of Requests for Admissions; 22. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set 2 1 of Requests for Production of Documents; 2 23. 3 of Interrogatories; 4 24. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 5 25. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 6 26. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to 7 8 9 10 11 Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set Plaintiff; 27. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions; 28. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; 12 29. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories; 13 30. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 14 31. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 15 32. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 to Plaintiff; 33. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests for Admissions; 34. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; 35. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Interrogatories; 23 36. Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Preventive Measures; 24 37. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 25 38. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Preventive Measures; 26 39. Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 27 40. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 28 41. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County; 3 42. 1 2 Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 43. 3 4 44. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 45. 7 8 Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 5 6 Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County; 46. 9 Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of 10 Interrogatories and Request for Production; and 11 II. DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 12 1. Deposition of Plaintiff (currently scheduled for February 21, 2024); 13 2. Deposition of Kate Murray (currently scheduled for February 15, 2024); 14 3. Deposition of Brian Cooperman (currently scheduled for February 15, 2024); 15 4. Deposition of Elando Johnson (currently scheduled for February 15, 2024); 16 5. Deposition of newly added Defendant Marco Solorio; 17 6. Deposition of newly added Defendant Leonard Morris; 18 7. Deposition of David Sutton (current or former employee of Defendant Preventative 19 Measures); 8. 20 21 Depositions of other fact witnesses present at the County Commission meeting during the subject incident; 22 9. Supplemental FRCP 26 disclosures; 23 10. Expert disclosures; 24 11. Deposition of parties’ treating physicians and/or experts; 25 12. Any additional discovery that is necessary as the parties proceed through discovery. 26 III. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY NOT COMPLETED WITHIN TIME SET BY DISCOVERY PLAN 27 A motion to extend deadlines articulated in the court’s scheduling order must be supported 28 by a showing of good cause. See Local Rule 26-3; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 4 1 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause to extend a deadline exists if it cannot reasonably 2 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In the instant 3 matter, all parties have diligently attempted to comply with the Court’s scheduling order – 4 however, the parties have determined they will be unable to obtain unable to obtain and produce 5 key evidence related to the incident and alleged damages, which then deprives the parties and their 6 respective experts of access to all evidence to formulate their opinions, complete their evaluations 7 and prepare their reports accordingly, as well as impairs counsels ability to reach a proper 8 determination as to further discovery needed. A few procedural issues have been pending that have 9 influenced the parties’ ability to conduct the necessary discovery in this matter: 10 1. Mr. Miller was recently incarcerated and is currently an inmate at Southern Desert 11 Correctional Center. On October 2, 2023, Defendant Clark County filed a motion for leave to take 12 Mr. Miller’s deposition. See ECF Doc. 14. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of non-opposition on 13 October 18, 2023. See ECF Doc. 24. On January 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Clark 14 County’s Motion to take Plaintiff’s deposition. See ECF Doc. 33. The parties have already 15 coordinated with Southern Desert Correctional Center to conduct Plaintiff’s in-person 16 deposition on February 21, 2024. 17 2. On October 10, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Mr. Miller’s request to amend 18 his complaint to add Defendants Marco Solorio and Leonard Morris. See ECF Doc. 15. Mr. Miller 19 subsequently filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) the following day. See ECF Doc. 17. 20 Service of the first amended complaint and summonses has been complete. Defendant Solorio and 21 Morris recently filed an answer to the FAC on January 11, 2024. See ECF Doc. 35 and 36. 22 3. On October 16, 2023, Defendant Clark County moved to amend the Crossclaim that it 23 asserted against Defendant Preventative Measures. See ECF Doc. 19. On January 2, 2024, the 24 Court also granted Defendant Clark County’s motion to amend the cross claim that it 25 asserted against Defendant Preventative Measures. See ECF Doc. 33. Defendant/Cross 26 claimant Clark County subsequently filed its amended cross claim on January 10, 2024. See 27 ECF Doc. 34. Defendant/Cross defendant Preventative Measures has yet to respond 28 Defendant/Cross claimant Clark County’s amended cross claim. 5 1 4. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff conferred with counsel for the Defendants via email 2 about the deposition availability of the following current or former employees of the 3 Defendants: Elando Johnson (Clark County employee), Katie Murray (Clark County 4 employee), Brian Copperman (Clark County employee), Jon Kitchen (Preventative 5 Measures employee), and David Sutton (Preventative Measures employee). Since Plaintiff’s 6 inquiry regarding these depositions, Defense counsel has diligently attempted to locate/ 7 coordinate the availability of these current/former employees. Recently, the parties were able 8 to set the depositions Elando Johnson (Clark County employee), Katie Murray (Clark 9 County employee), Brian Copperman (Clark County employee) – which are all scheduled 10 for February 15, 2024. The parties are still trying to coordinate the deposition availability 11 Jon Kitchen (Preventative Measures employee), David Sutton (Preventative Measures 12 employee) along with the newly added defendants, Marco Solorio and Leonard Morris. 13 however, with little success. 14 15 5. Lastly, counsel for Defendant Preventative Measures has a firm trial setting through mid-February 2024. 16 In sum, the parties cannot meet the expert deadline and complete discovery within the 17 current dates due to the reasons above. The parties believe that the depositions of Mr. Miller and 18 the current and former employees of Clark County and Preventative Measures are critical to the 19 opinions of the parties’ liability experts in this matter and, out of an abundance of caution, the 20 parties seek the requested extension to ensure that there is sufficient time to locate these 21 employees, set their respective depositions, and to allow the parties’ expert witnesses to a fair 22 opportunity to consider these individuals’ testimony so that they can formulating their expert 23 opinions. Equally important, the parties are also engaging in attempts to resolve this matter before 24 expending more time and resources on discovery. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that 25 the discovery deadlines in this matter be extended by an additional ninety (90) days. requested 26 extension will ensure all parties have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claims and defenses 27 on the merits. Therefore, and as set forth below, due diligence and good cause can be shown to 28 allow the Court, in its discretion, to extend the remaining deadlines as requested. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY Based on the foregoing, the proposed schedule for completing discovery is as follows: Discovery Deadline Motion to Amend/Add Parties Plaintiff’s Initial Expert Disclosures All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Discovery Cut-Off Date Dispositive Motions Current Deadline No extension 02.12.2024 Proposed Deadline No extension 05.13.2024 03.12.2024 04.11.2024 05.13.2024 06.10.2024 07.10.2024 08.12.2024 Dated this 29th day of January, 2024. RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM Dated this 29th day of January, 2024. CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY /s/ Jonathan B. Lee ____________________________ Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. Nevada Bar Number 13524 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ Joel K. Browning _____________________________ Joel K. Browning, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14489 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Suite 5075 Las Vegas, Nevada 89155 Attorneys for Defendant, Clark County Dated this 29th day of January, 2024. TYSON & MENDES /s/ Russell D. Christian ___________________________ Russell D. Christian, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11785 2835 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 140 Henderson, Nevada 89052 Attorneys for Defendant, Preventive Measures Security Firm, LLC ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED subject to the following modification. The parties' proposed IT IS SOtoORDERED. schedule fails include a deadline for filing their joint pretrial order. Accordingly, the deadline to file the Joint Pretrial Order is September 11, 2024. If dispositive motions Dated: ________________________. 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. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED this 31st day of January 2024. ________________________________ DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
