Miller v. Clark County et al, No. 2:2023cv00070 - Document 27 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting 26 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 4/11/2024. Motions due by 5/13/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 11/9/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Miller v. Clark County et al Doc. 27 Case 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA Document 26 Filed 11/07/23 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 Mack Miller 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 (First 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 Case 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA Document 26 Filed 11/07/23 Page 2 of 6 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. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 11 9. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 12 10. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 13 11. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 14 12. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental 15 disclosures; 16 13. 17 Measures; 18 14. 19 Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Preventive Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Preventive Measures; 20 15. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Preventive Measures; 21 16. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set 22 23 24 of Requests for Admissions; 17. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; 25 18. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set 26 of Interrogatories; 27 19. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 28 20. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 2 Case 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA Document 26 Filed 11/07/23 Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff; 22. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions; 23. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; 7 24. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories; 8 25. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 9 26. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 10 27. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 to Plaintiff; 28. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests for Admissions; 29. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; 30. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Interrogatories; 18 31. Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Preventive Measures; 19 32. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 20 33. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Preventive Measures; 21 34. Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 22 35. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 23 36. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County; 24 37. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for 25 26 27 28 Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 38. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 39. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for 3 Case 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA Document 26 Filed 11/07/23 Page 4 of 6 1 Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 40. 2 3 Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County; and 41. 4 The pending motion before the Court for leave to take Plaintiff’s deposition 5 pursuant to FRCP 30(2)(B). Mr. Miller was recently incarcerated. See ECF No. 14. 6 II. 1. 7 8 DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production; 1 9 2. Deposition of Plaintiff; 10 3. Deposition of newly added Defendant Marco Solorio; 11 4. Deposition of newly added Defendant Leonard Morris; 12 5. Depositions of other fact witnesses present at the County Commission meeting 13 during the subject incident; 14 6. Supplemental FRCP 26 disclosures; 15 7. Expert disclosures; 16 8. Deposition of parties’ treating physicians and/or experts; 17 9. Any additional discovery that is necessary as the parties proceed through discovery. 18 III. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY NOT COMPLETED WITHIN TIME SET BY DISCOVERY PLAN 19 A motion to extend deadlines articulated in the court’s scheduling order must be supported 20 by a showing of good cause. See Local Rule 26-3; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 21 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause to extend a deadline exists if it cannot reasonably 22 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In the instant 23 matter, all parties have diligently attempted to comply with the Court’s scheduling order – 24 however, due to recent developments that have transpired during litigation, the parties have 25 determined they will be unable to obtain unable to obtain and produce key evidence related to the 26 incident and alleged damages, which then deprives the parties and their respective experts of access 27 28 1 Counsel for Preventative Measures has required an extension of the original deadline(s) for the foregoing discovery to obtain the information and documents responsive the pending discovery requests. 4 Case 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA Document 26 Filed 11/07/23 Page 5 of 6 1 to all evidence to formulate their opinions, complete their evaluations and prepare their reports 2 accordingly, as well as impairs counsels ability to reach a proper determination as to further 3 discovery needed. Within the past month the following has transpired: 4 1. On October 10, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Mr. Miller’s request to amend 5 his complaint to add Defendants Marco Solorio and Leonard Morris. ECF No. 15. Mr. Miller 6 subsequently filed the First Amended Complaint the following day. ECF No. 17. Service of the 7 first amended complaint and summonses is pending, and the newly added defendants have yet to 8 file a responsive pleading. 9 2. Mr. Miller was recently incarcerated and is currently an inmate at Southern Desert 10 Correctional Center. On October 2, 2023, Defendant Clark County filed a motion for leave to take 11 Mr. Miller’s deposition. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of non-opposition on 12 October 18, 2023. ECF No. 24. The parties are simply awaiting an order from the Court with 13 respect to the request to take Mr. Miller’s deposition. 14 3. On October 16, 2023, Defendant Clark County moved to amend the Crossclaim that it 15 asserted against Defendant Preventative Measures. ECF No. 19. The Court has not issued a ruling 16 on pending motion yet. 17 In sum, the parties cannot meet the expert deadline and complete discovery within the 18 current dates due to the reasons above. The parties have worked diligently in their attempts to 19 schedule Mr. Miller’s deposition (after his recent incarceration). Further, with the recent addition 20 of the new defendants, additional time is necessary to allow the newly added defendants the 21 opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s allegations and conduct the necessary discovery to defend 22 against the claims asserted against them in them in this matter. The requested extension will ensure 23 all parties have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claims and defenses on the merits. 24 Therefore, and as set forth below, due diligence and good cause can be shown to allow the Court, 25 in its discretion, to extend the remaining deadlines as requested. 26 ... 27 ... 28 ... 5 Case 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA Document 26 Filed 11/07/23 Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 24 Proposed Deadline No extension 02.12.2024 12.13.2023 01.12.2024 02.12.2024 03.12.2024 04.11.2024 05.13.2024 Dated this 7th day of November, 2023. RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM Dated this 7th day of November, 2023. 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 7th day of November, 2023. 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 22 23 Current Deadline No extension 11.13.2023 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. 11/9/2023 Dated: ________________________. 25 __________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
