McDermott v. Otis Elevator Company et al, No. 2:2022cv01654 - Document 41 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 40 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 3/13/2024. Motions due by 4/12/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 7/27/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McDermott v. Otis Elevator Company et al Doc. 41 Case 2:22-cv-01654-APG-BNW Document 41 Filed 07/27/23 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jay J. Schuttert, Esq. (SBN 8656) Alexandria L. Layton, Esq. (SBN 14228) Paige S. Silva, Esq. (SBN 16001) EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (702) 805-0290 Facsimile: (702) 805-0291 Email: jschuttert@efstriallaw.com Email: alayton@efstriallaw.com Email: psilva@efstriallaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA 11 Evans Fears Schuttert McNulty Mickus 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89119 12 Case No. 2:22-cv-01654-APG-BNW KEVIN MCDERMOTT, Plaintiff, 13 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 14 vs. 15 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a foreign (Second Request) corporation; THE PEELLE COMPANY d/b/a PEELLE DOOR, a foreign corporation, SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X; inclusive, 16 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff KEVIN 22 MCDERMOTT (“Plaintiff”), Defendant SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION 23 (“Schindler”), and Defendant OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (“Otis”), through their respective 24 counsel, that the case management discovery deadlines in the Order Extending Discovery 25 Deadlines (First Request), April 20, 2023 [ECF No. 36] be extended by one hundred and twenty 26 (120) days, pursuant to FRCP 29 and LR 26-3 as follows. 27 necessitated by Plaintiff’s second recently-approved for extension for time to serve Defendant The 28 Peelle Company, d/b/a Peelle Door (“Peelle”), the foreign party which manufactured the elevator This requested extension was Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-01654-APG-BNW Document 41 Filed 07/27/23 Page 2 of 6 1 door security gate at issue and a necessary party to this litigation. This is the first request for an 2 extension of the discovery deadlines. 3 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 4 1. On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff served his FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures; 5 2. On December 11, 2022 Defendant Otis served its FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures; 6 3. On December 20, 2022, Defendant Schindler served its FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures; 7 4. On January 11, 2023, Defendant Schindler served a subpoena duces tecum on 8 Caesars Palace; 9 5. 10 11 12 On February 16, 2023, Plaintiff served his First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant Schindler; 6. On February 22, 2023, Defendant Schindler served its First Set of Interrogatories and First set of Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff; 13 7. On February 23, 2023, Defendant Schindler served a subpoena duces tecum on 14 Nevada OSHA; 15 8. On February 27, 2023 Plaintiff served his First Supplement to FRCP 26 Initial 16 Disclosures, Responses to Defendant Schindler’s First Set of Interrogatories, and Responses to 17 Defendant Schindler’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; 18 9. On March 2, 2023, Defendant Schindler served its First Supplement to FRCP 26 19 Initial Disclosures; 20 10. 21 22 23 24 25 26 On March 20, 2023, Defendant Schindler served a subpoena duces tecum on CCMSI; 11. On March 24, 2023, Defendant Schindler served its Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; 12. The Parties have subpoenaed various medical providers and other entities with records pertaining to Plaintiff and the subject incident. 13. On April 6, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff a 90-day extension of time, up until 27 July 18, 2023, to serve the Canadian company Peelle which manufactured the elevator safety gate 28 at issue. [ECF No. 34]. -2- Case 2:22-cv-01654-APG-BNW Document 41 Filed 07/27/23 Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 14. On April 20, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff, Schindler and Otis a 90-day extension of time with regard to discovery deadlines, [ECF No. 36]. 15. On June 29, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff an additional 90-day extension of 4 time, up until October 16, 2023, to serve the Canadian company Peelle which manufactured the 5 elevator safety gate at issue. [ECF No. 38]. 6 7 II. DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED AND REASONS WHY THE DISCOVERY REMAINING CANNOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS 8 Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request a 120-day extension of the current case 9 management deadlines to allow time for Peele to be served/appear in the action and to participate 10 11 in the following discovery to be completed: 1. Fact witness depositions: Defendants wish to depose Plaintiff Kevin McDermott, 12 Plaintiff’s treating physicians, and Plaintiff’s managers at Caesars Palace to whom Mr. McDermott 13 reported the incident. However, Defendants have been waiting to do so until after the Peelle has 14 been served so as to not require a second deposition after Peelle is served and enters the case, 15 effectively duplicating efforts. Moreover, if the parties conduct these essential depositions now 16 before Peelle is served, non-party witnesses from Caesars and Plaintiff’s treater physicians could 17 be forced to attend depositions twice. 18 2. Discovery involving Peelle: Peelle is a vital defendant in this case: Plaintiff’s 19 allegations are that the “safety gate” struck him while he was entering the subject elevator. The 20 other defendants, Schindler and Otis, only maintained the elevator and installed the elevator, 21 respectively, and the safety gate is a vital part of this product liability case. The parties need to 22 conduct discovery involving Peelle, which includes written discovery, document requests involving 23 the safety gate at issue, and a FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition of the party. More importantly, this needs 24 to be done prior to the expert disclosure deadline so the parties may disclose expert witnesses. 25 3. Inspection of the subject elevator: The parties require an inspection of the subject 26 elevator and security gate at Caesars Palace, prior to the disclosure of expert witnesses and reports. 27 However, this inspection should be conducted after Peelle is added as a party in order to allow 28 Peelle to meaningfully participate in the inspection and to avoid requiring a second inspection. -3- Case 2:22-cv-01654-APG-BNW Document 41 Filed 07/27/23 Page 4 of 6 1 Moreover, this inspection will require the coordination of at least 4 attorneys and their experts, 2 which the parties likely will not be able to before Plaintiff’s initial expert disclosure deadline, which 3 is currently set for August 16, 2023. 4 4. Expert witness depositions: Expert witness depositions are expected to be 5 completed after the disclosure of expert witnesses pursuant to this Court’s order. However, each 6 party is expected to retain multiple expert witnesses and it will therefore take additional time to 7 coordinate, prepare for, and take the depositions. Furthermore, the expert depositions should be 8 conducted after Peelle is added as a party in order to allow Peelle to attend the depositions to avoid 9 requiring a second deposition of multiple expert witnesses. 10 5. Other discovery: Moreover, the extension will allow the parties to do any necessary 11 follow-up discovery after responses to existing written discovery are served, to depose later- 12 identified witnesses and experts, and to obtain any additional records. 13 III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR A DISCOVERY EXTENSION 14 The parties have been diligently conducting discovery in this matter, as evidenced by the 15 written discovery exchanged between the parties. However, Peelle is a necessary party in this case 16 because it manufactured the security gate at issue in this case. Plaintiff has just obtained a second 17 90-day extension to serve Peele, a Canadian company, until October 16, 2023 and therefore a 120- 18 day extension on all discovery deadlines is practical here to ensure that Peelle has adequate time to 19 be added as a party and subsequently to participate meaningfully in the forthcoming discovery 20 efforts proposed by the parties. Specifically, to avoid having to conduct a second deposition of 21 Plaintiff, and nonparty physicians and Caesars employees, the parties request an extension to be 22 able to conduct this necessary discovery after Peelle enters the case. More importantly, the safety 23 gate is a vital part of this product liability case. The parties need to conduct discovery involving 24 Peelle, which includes written discovery, document requests involving the safety gate at issue, and 25 a FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition of the party. This discovery needs to occur before the expert disclosure 26 deadlines (currently August 16, 2023 and September 18, 2023) in order for the parties to serve 27 fulsome and relevant expert disclosures involving the safety gate at issue. Therefore, due to the 28 nature of Plaintiff’s extension to serve Peelle, as well as the number of parties and potential experts -4- Case 2:22-cv-01654-APG-BNW Document 41 Filed 07/27/23 Page 5 of 6 1 in this case, an additional 120 days for discovery is necessary to allow enough time to complete the 2 discovery outlined above and to properly develop the claims and defenses of each respective party. 3 Plaintiff and Defendants agree with the proposed extension of the current discovery 4 deadlines by 120 days. Accordingly, no party is prejudiced by the additional time necessary to 5 conduct the remaining discovery and to prepare for expert discovery. Counsel for the parties have 6 been diligently working together to prepare this stipulation and obtain an extension of the current 7 discovery deadlines. 8 All of the foregoing circumstances constitute good cause to extend the remaining discovery 9 deadlines, and the parties jointly and in good faith request this Court enter an Order extending the 10 discovery deadlines in accordance with their stipulation. 11 IV. 12 The parties hereby stipulate to continue the discovery deadlines and dispositive motion 13 PROPOSED REVISED DISCOVERY PLAN deadline 120 days and propose the following amendments to the current discovery deadlines: Old Deadline New Deadline Final date to amend pleadings or add parties: August 7, 2023 December 5, 2023 Plaintiff’s initial expert disclosures: August 16, 2023 December 14, 2023 Defendant’s initial expert disclosures: September 18, 2023 January 16, 2024 Rebuttal expert disclosures: October 17, 2023 February 14, 2024 Discovery cut off: November 14, 2023 March 13, 2024 Dispositive Motions: December 14, 2023 April 12, 2024 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 No trial date has been set. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- Case 2:22-cv-01654-APG-BNW Document 41 Filed 07/27/23 Page 6 of 6 1 2 SUBMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING COUNSEL OF RECORD: Dated: July 26, 2023. 3 4 EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS BROWNE GREEN, LLC /s/ Jay J. Schuttert Jay J. Schuttert, Esq. (SBN 8656) Alexandria L. Layton, Esq. (SBN 14228) Paige S. Silva, Esq. (SBN 16001) 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89119 /s/ Jaren Green Jared Green, Esq. (SBN 10059) Brian Unguren, Esq. (SBN 14427) 3755 Breakthrough Way, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89135 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Attorneys for Defendant Otis Elevator Company Attorneys for Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation AHLANDER INJURY LAW 13 14 15 16 17 /s/ M. Erik Ahlander M. Erik Ahlander, Esq. (SBN 9490) 9183 W. Flamingo Road, Suite 110 Las Vegas, NV 89147 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kevin McDermott 18 19 20 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 11:36 am, July 27, 2023 21 22 23 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
