Lykins v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't

Full title: PETER LYKINS, an individual; MARIA LYKINS, an individual, Plaintiffs, v…

Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Jan 18, 2023

2:22-cv-01068-APG-BNW (D. Nev. Jan. 18, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01068-APG-BNW

01-18-2023

PETER LYKINS, an individual; MARIA LYKINS, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, in its official capacity; DORI KOREN, as an individual and in his capacity as a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officer; DOE OFFICERS 1-15, as individuals and in their capacity as Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officers; and ROE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants.

Marquis Aurbach Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Captain Dori Koren LAW OFFICES OF KRISTINA WILDEVELD & ASSOCIATES By: /s/ Lisa A. Rasmussen Lisa A. Rasmussen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7491 Richard Bryant, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15511 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Peter and Maria Lykins MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING By: /s/ Jackie V. Nichols Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Captain Dori Koren

BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Marquis Aurbach Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Captain Dori Koren

LAW OFFICES OF KRISTINA WILDEVELD & ASSOCIATES By: /s/ Lisa A. Rasmussen Lisa A. Rasmussen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7491 Richard Bryant, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15511 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Peter and Maria Lykins

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING By: /s/ Jackie V. Nichols Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 Jackie V. Nichols, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14246 Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Captain Dori Koren

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY AND OTHER DEADLINES PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS (FIRST REQUEST)

BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiffs Peter Lykins and Maria Lykins (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel of record, Lisa A. Rasmussen., Esq. and Richard Bryant, Esq., of Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld & Associates and Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) and Captain Dori Koren (“Koren”) (hereinafter “LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record, Craig R. Anderson, Esq. and Jackie V. Nichols, Esq., with the law firm of Marquis Aurbach Coffing, (collectively the “Parties”), and hereby agree and jointly stipulate the following:

1. During a recent telephone to discuss discovery, including production of Body Worn Camera videos conducted in January 2023, the Parties determined that this matter may be appropriate for possible resolution and that a stay of discovery and other deadlines would allow the Parties to explore the possibility of settlement, without incurring the time and expense of ongoing discovery and other work during settlement discussions.

2. The Parties agree that all deadlines in this matter be stayed for a forty-five (45) day period. Parties further agree that within fifteen (15) days after completion of the contemplated settlement discussions, if not successful, the parties will submit a stipulated schedule regarding any pending motions or discovery which will extend all applicable dates for the commensurate time period that they were stayed in accordance with Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26-1 of the Local Rules of the Unites States District Court, for the Court's approval.

3. Given the amount of Body Worn Camera videos at issue, LVMPD will continue to review the videos and supplement disclosures in accordance with Rule 26.

4. Accordingly, the Parties hereby agree and request the Court to enter a stay of all deadlines in the instant case.

5. This is the Parties” first request for a stay of deadlines in this matter.

6. Notwithstanding the stay, the Parties intend to and hereby agree to cooperate in the exchange of information as needed to facilitate settlement. ... ... ... ...

7. The Parties both submit that the instant stipulation is being offered in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 25 is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a stipulation to dismiss or proposed scheduling order is due by March 20, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED