Opinion
2:22-cv-00532- JCM-DJA
04-24-2023
JEFFERY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants
H&P LAW Marjorie L. Hauf, Esq. Nevada Bar No.: 8111 Matthew G. Pfau, Esq. Nevada Bar No.: 11439 Bre'Ahn Brooks, Esq. Nevada Bar No.: 15672 Attorneys for Plaintiff SPENCER FANE LLP Mary E. Bacon, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12686 Jessica Chong, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13845 Attorneys for USAA Casualty Insurance Company
H&P LAW Marjorie L. Hauf, Esq. Nevada Bar No.: 8111 Matthew G. Pfau, Esq. Nevada Bar No.: 11439 Bre'Ahn Brooks, Esq. Nevada Bar No.: 15672 Attorneys for Plaintiff
SPENCER FANE LLP Mary E. Bacon, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12686 Jessica Chong, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13845 Attorneys for USAA Casualty Insurance Company
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (THIRD REQUEST)
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 6, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and LR 26-4, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate and agree that there is good cause to extend the discovery deadlines in the operative discovery plan [ECF No.57], as set forth below.
A. Pursuant to LR 26-4(a), the parties stipulate that the following discovery was completed:
1. The parties have served initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1);
2. Plaintiff has propounded written discovery on Defendants;
3. Defendants have propounded written discovery on Plaintiff;
4. Plaintiff has answered written discovery requests;
5. Defendants have answered written discovery requests;
B. Pursuant to LR 26-4(b), the parties stipulate that they need to complete the following discovery:
1. Deposition of Defendants.
2. Deposition of percipient witnesses.
3. Initial and Rebuttal Expert Disclosures.
4. Deposition of Defendant's FRCP 30(b)(6) witnesses and/or employees.
5. Depositions of Plaintiff's medical providers.
6. Depositions of each party's respective experts;
7. Additional Written Discovery; and
8. Any other discovery that may become necessary upon completion of the discovery above.
C. Pursuant to LR 26-4(c), the parties stipulate an extension is needed for the following reasons:
The parties have been diligent in conducting discovery thus far. Notwithstanding this fact, there have been several impediments to completing the necessary discovery within the current discovery period.
First, Plaintiff unilaterally set the depositions of two of Defendant's employees Mira Kilpatrick and Claire Lammerding. Following proper service of these deposition notices, Defendant advised that they were not available on the dates set for the depositions. Defendant is currently in the process of confirming availability for both witnesses so that those depositions may be reset. Defendant's counsel has also had severely limited availability due to being out on maternity leave. Defendant's counsel will be back in the office the first part of May.
Second, Plaintiff also noticed the deposition of the FRCP 30(b0(6) witness for Defendant. However, because the parties could not come to an agreement about the topics outlined in the deposition notice, Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order regarding that deposition. That motion is not yet fully briefed and has not been decided by the Court.
Plaintiff requires the depositions of the Defendant employees as well as the FRCP 30(b0(6) witness for Defendant in advance of the parties initial expert disclosure deadline.
Third, Plaintiff served written discovery, and has requested supplemental responses to those requests. Defendant's supplemental responses are now due no later than April 24, 2023.
Plaintiff also needs defendant's supplemental responses to written discovery in advance of the parties initial expert disclosure deadline.
Lastly, Defendant has filed a motion to compel a FRCP 35 examination, which also has not yet been heard. Defendant cannot move forward with expert discovery without a determination on the motion to compel. Based on the outstanding discovery still needed and the pending motions before the Court, there is good cause to extend the discovery deadlines ninety (90) days.
D. Pursuant to LR 26-4(d), the parties stipulate to the following proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery:
The parties agree to extend all the discovery deadlines in this case by ninety (90) days, as set forth below:
1. Extend the discovery cut-off deadline from 6/30/23 to 9/28/23;
2. Extend the deadline to amend the pleadings and add parties from 9/1/2022 to CLOSED;
3. Extend the date for initial expert disclosures from 5/18/23 to 8/16/23;
4. Extend the date to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses from 6/20/23 to 9/18/23;
5. Extend the date to file dispositive motions from 7/3/23 to 10/2/23; and
6. Extend the date to file the Joint Pre-Trial Order from 8/28/23 to 11/27/23. If dispositive motions are filed, the joint pretrial order is due thirty (30) days from the entry of the court's ruling on the motions.
7. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures must be included in the Joint Pre-Trial Order.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.