Opinion
2:20-CV-01381-KJD-VCF
07-27-2023
BROWNING, Plaintiff, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants.
David B. Owens California Bar No. 275030 Counsel for Plaintiff Paul Browning Luke A. Busby, ESQ Nevada Bar No. 10319 Designated Resident Nevada Counsel for Plaintiff Craig R. Anderson Counsel for Defendants Loevy & Loevy Counsel for Plaintiff Elizabeth Wang* Loevy & Loevy Counsel for Plaintiff Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Marquis Aurbach Coffing Nevada Bar No. 6882 Counsel for Defendants
David B. Owens California Bar No. 275030
Counsel for Plaintiff Paul Browning
Luke A. Busby, ESQ Nevada Bar No. 10319
Designated Resident Nevada Counsel for Plaintiff
Craig R. Anderson Counsel for Defendants
Loevy & Loevy Counsel for Plaintiff
Elizabeth Wang* Loevy & Loevy Counsel for Plaintiff
Craig R. Anderson, Esq.
Marquis Aurbach Coffing Nevada Bar No. 6882 Counsel for Defendants
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE TO (REFILED) DISPOSITIVE MOTION (THIRD REQUEST)
Now comes Betty Browning, Administrator of the Estate of Paul Browning, and Defendants, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby and stipulate and agree that the response deadline for Plaintiffs response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be extended, and state as follows:
1. Defendants filed a 54-page motion for summary judgment on June 16, 2023. Dkt. 81. (The motion was refiled after Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Nevada state constitutional claims.)
2. Under the schedule set by the Court, Plaintiffs response to the motion was due on July 17, 2023. Dkt. 78.
3. The parties subsequently stipulated to an extension of one week for Plaintiff to file her response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, due to conflicting deadlines in other cases to which Plaintiffs counsel is obligated to meet. The Court granted the stipulation. Dkt. 83.
4. The parties stipulated to a second extension of one week, until July 31, 2023, primarily due to a deposition that Plaintiffs counsel, Elizabeth Wang, unexpectedly had to take on July 24, 2023. The Court granted the stipulation. Dkt. 85.
5. Plaintiff did not foresee a third extension being necessary; however, due to the tragic and sudden death of one of undersigned counsel's (David B. Owens') current clients, a third request for a three-day extension is being made.
6. A three-day extension will allow undersigned counsel time to grieve the loss of a dear client and friend, who undersigned counsel not only has a professional relationship with, but also a personal connection to, as this client lived down the street from where undersigned counsel grew up.
7. Plaintiff requests a new deadline of August 3, 2023. Accordingly, the parties also stipulate that Defendants' reply deadline be extended to August 17, 2023.
8. The reasons stated above, as well as the extensive length and nature of the dispositive motion itself, constitute good cause. This request is made as a good faith effort to complete Plaintiffs response thoroughly and responsibly; without a brief period for counsel to commit time to the bereaved family as well as to grieve his own loss, counsel is unable to complete the task at hand.
9. This request is not being submitted to unduly delay or prejudice any party but, rather, to ensure that Plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to present a fulsome response to Defendants' 54-page motion seeking the entire dismissal of this important civil rights suit.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED that, based on the parties' Stipulation, and for good cause as described therein, Plaintiffs response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be due on August 3, 2023.