Cohee v. Holman Fleet Leasing, LLC et al, No. 2:2023cv01747 - Document 11 (D. Nev. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 9 Stipulated Discovery Plan. Discovery due by 8/30/2024. Motions due by 9/30/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/30/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 12/4/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

Download PDF

Cohee v. Holman Fleet Leasing, LLC et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Doc. 11 BOYD B. MOSS, III, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.8856 boyd@mossberglv.com MARCUS A. BERG, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9670 marcus@mossberglv.com JOHN C. FUNK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9255 john@mossberglv.com MOSS BERG INJURY LAWYERS 4101 Meadows Lane, Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Telephone: (702) 222-4555 Facsimile: (702) 222-4556 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 THERESA COHEE, individually, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01747-JCM-BNW 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 v. HOLMAN FLEET LEASING, LLC, a Foreign Limited-Liability Company; ARI FLEET LT, a business trust, a Foreign Business Trust; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation; JASON M. HICKMAN, individually; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants. 22 23 24 25 STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER [SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUEST] Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Rules of Practice for the United States District 26 Court for the District of Nevada 26-1(a)-(b), Defendants HOLMAN FLEET LEASING, LLC, 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 ARI FLEET LT, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, and JASON M. HICKMAN by 2 and through its counsel of record, the law firm of QUINN COVARRUBIAS and MESSNER 3 REEVES, LLP, and Plaintiff THERESA COHEE, by and through her counsel of record, MOSS 4 5 BERG INJURY LAWYERS, conducted a discovery-planning conference on November 16, 6 2023, and hereby submit to the court the following proposed discovery plan. Additionally, in 7 compliance with LR 26-1 (a)-(b), the parties request a special scheduling review, and the 8 following provides a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply 9 to the case. 10 I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 11 12 A. DATE OF FILING OF ANSWER BY FIRST ANSWERING DEFENDANT 13 14 15 16 October 27, 2023 . B. DATE THE FED. R. CIV. P. 26(F) CONFERENCE WAS HELD November 16, 2023 17 II. 18 19 20 DISCOVERY PLAN PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)(3) A. WHETHER CHANGES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE IN TIMING, FORM, OR REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURES UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 26(A) 21 22 1. Plaintiff’s view: None. 23 24 2. Defendant’s view: None. 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 B. SUBJECTS ON WHICH DISCOVERY MAY BE NEEDED, WHEN DISCOVERY SHOULD BE COMPLETED, AND WHETHER DISCOVERY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN PHASES OR BE LIMITED TO OR FOCUSED ON PARTICULAR ISSUES 3 1. Plaintiff’s view: 4 i. Discovery will consist of items needed regarding Plaintiff’s claims and 5 Defendant’s defenses. 6 7 ii. Discovery should be completed on August 30, 2024, allowing 274 days for 8 discovery. 9 iii. Discovery in this matter does not need to be conducted in phases. 10 2. Defendant’s view: 11 i. Discovery will consist of items needed regarding Plaintiff’s claims and 12 Defendant’s defenses. 13 14 ii. Discovery should be completed on August 30, 2024, allowing 274 days for 15 discovery. 16 iii. Discovery in this matter does not need to be conducted in phases. 17 18 19 C. WHETHER ISSUES EXIST REGARDING DISCLOSURE OR DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE FORM OR FORMS IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE PRODUCED 20 1. Plaintiff’s view: Not at this time. 21 2. Defendant’s view: Not at this time. 22 23 24 25 D. WHETHER ISSUES EXIST REGARDING CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE OR OF PROTECTION AS TRIAL-PREPARATION MATERIALS, INCLUDING—IF THE PARTIES AGREE ON A PROCEDURE TO ASSERT THESE CLAIMS AFTER PRODUCTION—WHETHER TO ASK THE COURT TO INCLUDE THEIR AGREEMENT IN AN ORDER UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502 26 27 28 3 1 1. Plaintiff’s view: Not at this time. 2 2. Defendant’s view: Not at this time. 3 4 5 6 E. WHETHER, IF ANY, OTHER ORDERS SHOULD BE ENTERED BY THE COURT UNDER RULE 26(C) OR RULE 16(B) AND (C) 1. Plaintiff’s view: Not at this time. 2. Defendant’s view: Not at this time. 7 8 9 III. DISCOVERY PLAN AND MANDATORY DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO LR 26-1 (b) 10 11 12 13 A. A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS WHY LONGER OR DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS SHOULD APPLY TO THE CASE OR, IN CASES IN WHICH THE PARTIES DISAGREE AS TO THE FORM OR CONTENTS OF THE DISCOVERY PLAN, A STATEMENT OF EACH PARTY’S POSITION ON EACH POINT IN DISPUTE PURSUANT TO LR 26-1(a) 14 15 1. Plaintiff’s view: Plaintiff requests 240 days because Plaintiff is still treating for her 16 injuries. Also, Plaintiff has been recommended for a knee surgery in which she wants to proceed 17 with but is waiting for insurance to approve. The extended discovery provides the Parties a 18 19 meaningful period in which to complete discovery. 2. Defendant’s view: Defendant request 274 days because they will need the additional 20 21 time to acquire all of Plaintiff’s medical records. Also, Plaintiff’s claims may necessitate an 22 Independent Medical Examination and multiple witness depositions. The extended discovery 23 provides the Parties a meaningful period in which to complete discovery. Also, defense counsel 24 has a lengthy multi-party asbestos preference trial set for March 4, 2024, which will impact the 25 timing of depositions and expert discovery in this case. 26 27 28 4 B. FORM OF STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER 1 2 PURSUANT TO LR 26-1(b)(1)-(6) 3 LR 26-1(b)(1-6) Deadlines DATE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Discovery Cut-Off Date August 30, 2024 Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties (LR 26-1(e)(2)) (Not later than 90 days before close of discovery) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures (Experts) (Not later than 60 days before close of discovery) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Rebuttal Disclosures (Not later than 30 days after initial disclosure of experts) Dispositive Motions (LR 26-1(e)(4)) (Not later than 30 days after Discovery cut-off date) Joint Pretrial Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures (Not later than 30 days after dispositive-motion deadline) May 31, 2024 July 1, 2024 August 1, 2024 September 30, 2024 October 30, 2024 15 16 17 A motion or stipulation to extend any deadline set forth in the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must be received by the court no later than twenty-one (21) days before the 18 expiration of the subject deadline and must be supported by a showing of good faith as outlined 19 20 21 in LR 26-4. C. The undersigned certify that they met and conferred about the possibility of using 22 23 24 CERTIFICATION OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE alternative dispute-resolution processes. D. CERTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF CASE DISPOSITION 25 26 27 The undersigned do not consent to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636 (c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, or the use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 2013-01). 28 5 1 E. 2 3 ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE DISPOSITION A jury trial has been demanded and the undersigned certify that they discussed whether the parties intend to present evidence in electronic format to jurors for the purposes of jury 4 5 deliberations, and the following stipulations were reached regarding providing discovery in an 6 electronic format compatible with the court’s electronic jury evidence display system: None at 7 this time. 8 /// 9 /// 10 /// 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 2 3 4 5 F. OTHER ORDERS REQUIRED OF THE COURT: None at this time. STIPULATED TO BY: DATED this 30th day of November 2023. DATED this _30th_day of November 2023. MOSS BERG INJURY LAWYERS 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 /s/ Boyd B. Moss III, Esq. BOYD B. MOSS III, ESQ. boyd@mossberglv.com MARCUS A. BERG, ESQ. marcus@mossberglv.com JOHN C. FUNK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9255 john@mossberglv.com 4101 Meadows Lane, Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: /s/ Stephanie Quinn Stephanie L. Quinn, Esq. Nevada State Bar No. 12632 QUINN COVARRUBIAS 2220 Douglas Blvd., Suite 240 Roseville, CA 95661 T: (916) 400-2300 F: (916) 400-2301 squinn@quinncova.com Renee Finch, Esq. Nevada State Bar No. 13118 MESSNER REEVES, LLP 9845 W. Russell Road, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 T: (702) 363-5100 F: (702) 363-2101 rfinch@messner.com 13 14 15 16 17 18 Attorneys for Defendants HOLMAN FLEET LEASING, LLC ARI FLEET LT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JASON M. HICKMAN 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: 12/4/2023 26 27 28 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.