Strother v. Nye County et al, No. 2:2023cv00947 - Document 39 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 38 Stipulated Discovery Plan. Discovery due by 2/27/2024. Motions due by 3/28/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/29/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/30/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Strother v. Nye County et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Doc. 39 HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC Brenoch R. Wirthlin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10282 Peccole Professional Plaza 10080 Alta Drive No. 200 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Phone: (702) 385-2500 Fax: (702) 385-2086 email: bwirthlin@hutchlegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs KERR SIMPSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. Sterling Kerr, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3978 George E. Robinson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9667 2900 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89052 Phone: 702.451.2055 Fax: 702.451.2077 Email: sterling@kerrsimpsonlaw.com george@kerrsimpsonlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 16 17 MICHELLE LYNN STROTHER, 18 19 Plaintiff(s), vs. 20 21 22 23 24 NYE COUNTY, et al., Defendant(s). § § § § § § § § § § § § Case 2:23-CV-00947-GMN-NJK JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN [SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(b)] 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(b), Plaintiff Michelle Lynn Strother (“Strother” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant Nye County (“Nye County” or “Defendant”), respectfully submit the following proposed Joint Discovery Plan: Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. Preliminary Matters a. Nature and Basis of Claims and Defenses 2 3 Strother brings this action pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §1983, stemming from her interactions with Nye County related 4 to zoning issues and the subsequent prosecution of Strother by Nye County. Nye County denies 5 all claims made by Strother and has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. The parties have 6 stipulated to the filing of an Amended Complaint, which has a deadline of October 28, 2023. 7 b. Attorneys’ Rule 26(f) Conference 8 9 10 The Rule 26(f) conference between counsel for the parties occurred on October 26, 2023, and was attended by the undersigned Brenoch R. Wirthlin, Esq. on behalf of Strother and Brian Hardy, Esq. on behalf of Nye County. 11 12 13 14 15 16 c. Service of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E), the parties consent to service of pleadings and other papers by notice of electronic filing and accompanying electronic service (for documents filed with the Court) and/or by email (for discovery and other non-filed documents). For email service, the parties consent to receive service at counsel’s below email addresses. For purposes of response time, email service will be treated the same as service by hand-delivery, except that a document 17 shall not be considered served if the party effectuating service receives an electronic notice that 18 the email was not sent successfully. Service may also be accomplished by other means authorized 19 by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the parties agree that if they serve any documents by 20 means other than those specified above, they will also email a courtesy copy to counsel at the 21 below email addresses. 22 d. Certifications 23 The parties certify that they discussed the possibility of attempting a prompt negotiated 24 resolution of this matter, including mediation, arbitration and early neutral evaluation. The parties 25 further certify that they considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge, and the use of the Short 26 Trial Program. 27 28 -2- 1 6. 2 All motions to modify or extend this Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must be made 3 4 5 6 7 Extension or Modification of the Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order within the deadline set forth above and comply with LR 26-3. 7. E-Discovery The parties stipulate that all requests for production served in this matter shall include a request for any emails and other electronic documents in the responding party’s possession, custody or control, except as set forth herein. The parties agree to produce electronic documents in the form of exact duplicates of the original files (including all metadata), except that emails may 8 be produced in the form of .pst files. The parties agree to further produce Bates-labeled .pdf 9 versions of all emails, word documents, PowerPoint files, images and .pdf documents, with 10 attachments to an email to be produced directly behind the relevant email. Documents that are 11 12 13 other file types including, without limitation, excel spreadsheets shall be produced in native format with their name altered to the Bates number that would have been assigned to them if they had been produced in .pdf format. In addition, the parties agree the producing party is only required to produce a single copy 14 of a responsive document and will globally de-duplicate responsive ESI (based on MD5 or SHA- 15 1 hash values at the document level) across all custodians. For emails with attachments, the hash 16 value is generated based on the parent/child document grouping. However, metadata identifying 17 all custodians in possession of each document that is removed as a duplicate must be produced, to 18 the extent it exists at the point of collection, in an “OTHER CUSTODIAN” field in the production load file. 19 Further, the producing party may produce e-mails solely as part of an inclusive e-mail 20 thread, even though such e-mails were transmitted by themselves or as part of a non-exclusive 21 shorter e-mail thread, provided that any otherwise duplicate e-mail thread having a previous e- 22 mail in the thread deleted or modified will be identified as a separate inclusive e-mail. The 23 producing party will make reasonable efforts to correct any errors to produce e-mail threads, as 24 described above, including but not limited to incomplete production of attachments. If any issues arise from producing party’s production of e-mail threads, even if not strictly production “errors,” 25 26 producing party and the requesting party will meet and confer in good faith to resolve or address such issues. 27 28 -4- 1 8. 2 The parties agree to exchange privilege logs in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure and Local Rules of this Court, within thirty (30) days after the exchange of documents. 4 The parties agree that the inadvertent production of a privileged document in this matter 5 shall not constitute a waiver of any assertion of privilege. Should any party discover that it has 6 inadvertently produced document(s) it asserts are privileged, it shall promptly notify all other 7 parties of that fact, identifying the document(s) by Bates number. Within seven (7) days of 8 providing such notice, the party that inadvertently produced the document(s) shall produce a 9 supplemental privilege log identifying the documents in question. Within seven (7) days of 10 receiving the initial notice of the inadvertent production, the parties to whom the document was 11 inadvertently produced shall destroy all copies of the document in their possession, custody or 12 control and shall certify in writing to the producing party that they have done so. A party that 13 challenges the assertion of privilege over any inadvertently produced document may do so in 14 accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court in a manner 15 that does not disclose information over which the claim of privilege is asserted. Assertions of Privilege and Claw-Back Agreement 16 If a document is attached as an exhibit to any publicly filed pleading in this matter, notice 17 that such document is an inadvertently produced privileged document must be given no later than 18 fourteen (14) days after the document was publicly filed. If such notice is timely given, the parties 19 to this proceeding agree to jointly move to seal the filed document over which privilege is asserted, 20 in which case a party shall request that the filing be unsealed only if the assertion of privilege is 21 successfully challenged. Nothing in this section is intended to waive a party’s right to challenge 22 the designation of a document as privileged. 23 If a document is introduced as a deposition exhibit in this matter, notice that such document 24 is an inadvertently produced privileged document must be given no later than fourteen (14) days 25 from the calendar day on which such deposition has concluded. If such notice is timely given, the 26 parties agree not to publicly disclose (beyond the confines of the deposition) any information over 27 which the claim of privilege is asserted unless the claim of privilege is successfully challenged. 28 -5- 1 The parties stipulate, to the greatest extent permitted by law, that the public filing of an 2 inadvertently produced privileged document and the introduction of an inadvertently produced 3 privileged document as a deposition exhibit in this matter shall not constitute a waiver of privilege. 4 9. 5 The parties certify they have discussed whether they intend to present evidence in 6 electronic format to jurors for the purposes of jury deliberations. Discussions between the parties 7 will be ongoing as the trial date approaches and any electronic evidence will be presented in a 8 format compatible with the Court’s electronic jury evidence display system. 9 10. Electronic Evidence Later Appearing Parties 10 Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order on any party 11 appearing after the date they become effective within seven (7) days of that party’s appearance. 12 This Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order shall apply to such later-appearing party unless, upon 13 motion and for good cause shown, the Court orders otherwise. 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -6- 1 11. Scheduling/Discovery Conference 2 The parties have not requested special scheduling review herein but are available for a 3 conference to discuss this proposed Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order should one be 4 requested by the Court. 5 DATED: October 27, 2023 6 Respectfully submitted, MARQUIS AURBACH 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 /s/ Hayden R. Smith Brian R. Hardy, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10068 Hayden R. Smith, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15328 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 Attorneys for Defendants, Nye County and Brian Kunzi HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC /s/ Brenoch R. Wirthlin Brenoch R. Wirthlin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10282 Peccole Professional Plaza 10080 Alta Drive No. 200 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KERR SIMPSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW /s/ George E. Robinson P. Sterling Kerr, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3978 George E. Robinson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9667 2900 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89052 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 20 21 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED: 22 23 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 DATED: October 30, 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.
