Ferre v. Albertson's LLC, No. 2:2023cv01454 - Document 10 (D. Nev. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER granting 9 Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 5/15/2024. Motions due by 6/14/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/15/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 10/31/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CT)

Download PDF
Ferre v. Albertson's LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Doc. 10 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 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA DEBBIE KAY FERRE, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01454-GMN-BNW 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 19 v. ALBERTSON’S, LLC, a Foreign Corporation d/b/a Albertson’s #3333; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants. 20 21 STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER [SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUEST] 22 23 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Rules of Practice for the United States District 24 Court for the District of Nevada 26-1(a)-(b), Defendant Albertson’s LLC, by and through its 25 counsel of record, the law firm of BACKUS, CARRANZA & BURDEN, and Plaintiff Debbie 26 27 Kay Ferre, by and through her counsel of record, MOSS BERG INJURY LAWYERS, 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 conducted a discovery-planning conference on October 25, 2023, and hereby submit to the court 2 the following proposed discovery plan. Additionally, in compliance with LR 26-1 (a)-(b), the 3 parties request a special scheduling review, and the following provides a statement of the 4 5 reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case. I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 6 7 A. DATE OF FILING OF ANSWER BY FIRST ANSWERING DEFENDANT 8 10 September 18, 2023 . B. DATE THE FED. R. CIV. P. 26(F) CONFERENCE WAS HELD 11 October 25, 2023 9 12 13 II. 14 DISCOVERY PLAN PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)(3) 15 16 17 A. WHETHER CHANGES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE IN TIMING, FORM, OR REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURES UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 26(A) 1. Plaintiff’s view: None. 18 19 2. Defendant’s view: None. 20 21 22 23 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 1. Plaintiff’s view: 24 25 26 i. Discovery will consist of items needed regarding Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses. 27 28 2 1 ii. Discovery should be completed on May 15, 2024, allowing 240 days for 2 discovery. 3 iii. Discovery in this matter does not need to be conducted in phases. 4 2. Defendant’s view: 5 6 i. Discovery will consist of items needed regarding Plaintiff’s claims and 7 Defendant’s defenses. 8 ii. Discovery should be completed on May 15, 2024, allowing 240 days for 9 discovery. 10 iii. Discovery in this matter does not need to be conducted in phases. 11 12 13 C. WHETHER ISSUES EXIST REGARDING DISCLOSURE OR DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE FORM OR FORMS IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE PRODUCED 1. Plaintiff’s view: Not at this time. 14 15 2. Defendant’s view: Not at this time. 16 D. 17 18 19 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 20 21 22 1. Plaintiff’s view: Not at this time. 2. Defendant’s view: Not at this time. 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 E. WHETHER, IF ANY, OTHER ORDERS SHOULD BE ENTERED BY THE COURT UNDER RULE 26(C) OR RULE 16(B) AND (C) 3 1. Plaintiff’s view: Not at this time. 4 2. Defendant’s view: Not at this time. 5 6 7 8 9 III. DISCOVERY PLAN AND MANDATORY DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO LR 26-1 (b) 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) 10 11 12 1. Plaintiff’s view: Plaintiff requests 240 days because Plaintiff is still treating for her injuries. Also, Plaintiff claims may necessitate an Independent Medical Examination and 13 multiple witness depositions. The extended discovery provides the Parties a meaningful period in 14 15 16 17 18 which to complete discovery. 2. Defendant’s view: Defendant request 240 days because they will need the additional time to acquire all of Plaintiff’s medical records. Also, Plaintiff’s claims may necessitate an Independent Medical Examination and multiple witness depositions. The extended discovery 19 provides the Parties a meaningful period in which to complete discovery. 20 21 22 23 24 B. FORM OF STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO LR 26-1(b)(1)-(6) LR 26-1(b)(1-6) Deadlines DATE Discovery Cut-Off Date May 15, 2024 Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties (LR 26-1(e)(2)) (Not later than 90 days before close of discovery) February 15, 2024 25 26 27 28 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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) March 15, 2024 April 15, 2024 June 14, 2024 July 15, 2024 9 A motion or stipulation to extend any deadline set forth in the Discovery Plan and 10 11 Scheduling Order must be received by the court no later than twenty-one (21) days before the 12 expiration of the subject deadline and must be supported by a showing of good faith as outlined 13 in LR 26-4. 14 C. 15 CERTIFICATION OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE The undersigned certify that they met and conferred about the possibility of using 16 17 18 alternative dispute-resolution processes. D. The undersigned do not consent to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636 (c) 19 20 21 CERTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF CASE DISPOSITION and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, or the use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 2013-01). E. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE DISPOSITION 22 A jury trial has been demanded and the undersigned certify that they discussed whether 23 24 25 the parties intend to present evidence in electronic format to jurors for the purposes of jury deliberations, and the following stipulations were reached regarding providing discovery in an 26 27 28 5 1 electronic format compatible with the court’s electronic jury evidence display system: None at 2 this time. 3 F. OTHER ORDERS REQUIRED OF THE COURT: 4 5 6 None at this time. STIPULATED TO BY: 7 DATED this 30th 8 MOSS BERG INJURY LAWYERS BACKUS, CARRANZA & BURDEN /s/ Boyd B. Moss III, Esq. BOYD B. MOSS III, ESQ. boyd@mossberglv.com MARCUS A. BERG, ESQ. marcus@mossberglv.com 4101 Meadows Lane, Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: /s/ Jack P. Burden Jack P. Burden, Esq. 3050 South Durango Drive Las Vegas, NV 89117 Attorneys for Defendant ALBERTSONS, LLC 9 10 11 12 13 DATED this _30th ___day of October 2023. day of October 2023. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 DATED: 10/31/2023 20 21 22 23 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.