Opinion
2:19-cv-00168-JAD-DJA
01-28-2022
KATHRYN MAYORGA, an individual Plaintiff, v. CRISTIANO RONALDO, individually, Does I-XX and Roe Corporations I-XX; Defendants.
STOVALL AND ASSOCIATES Leslie Mark Stovall CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS Kendelee L. Works LESLIE MARK' STOVALL, ESQ. Stovall & Associates PETER S. CHRISTIANSEN, ESQ. KENDELEE LEASCHER WORKS, ESQ.
STOVALL AND ASSOCIATES Leslie Mark Stovall
CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS Kendelee L. Works
LESLIE MARK' STOVALL, ESQ. Stovall & Associates
PETER S. CHRISTIANSEN, ESQ. KENDELEE LEASCHER WORKS, ESQ.
STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO THE NOTICE REGARDING REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE FILE IECF 1721 AND THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY'S MOTION TO INTERVENE [ECF 176] (THIRD REQUEST)
JENNIFER A.. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN Plaintiff KATHERINE MAYORGA by and through her attorney LESLIE MARK STOVALL, ESQ. And Defendant, CRISTIANO RONALDO, by and through his attorney PETER S. CHRISTIANSEN, ESQ., that the time for Plaintiff and Defendant's responses to the Notice Regarding Real Party In Interest's Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, criminal investigative file [ECF 172] and that responses to The New York Times Company's Motion to Intervene [ECF 176], currently due on January 25, 2022, be extended to February 8, 2022.
Plaintiffs counsel initially requested a one-week extension of time for Plaintiff to file the foregoing responses. Defendant did not object and requested a reciprocal extension of time. Plaintiff's counsel was unable to complete drafting the subject responses on or before the initial deadline, because Plaintiffs counsel and his family tested positive and suffered the Covid-19 virus over the holidays which prevented Plaintiff from reviewing and completing plaintiffs response to the notice regarding real party in interest, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, criminal investigative file [ECF 172] as well as responding to the New York Times Company's Motion to Intervene [ECF 176].
Defendant's Counsel also had to dedicate substantial time to preparation for trial in other cases and has experienced staffing shortages associated with the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases. Accordingly, Defense Counsel likewise asserted good cause for the initial one week extension of the response deadlines.
Since the time this Court granted the parties second request for extension [ECF 179] making the foregoing responses due on January 25, 2022, respectively, the Parties have been diligently working on their responses. However, the parties are engaged in continued negotiations, in an attempt to resolve and/or further narrow the issues to be determined by this Court. As of the date of filing the instant stipulation, negotiations have not yet reached any final resolution. Accordingly, good cause exists to extend the instant deadline for an additional two weeks in order to allow a continued and meaningful opportunity to exchange draft stipulations to further explore such a resolution. As such, the Parties stipulate to the same.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant's responses to the notice regarding real party in interest's, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, criminal investigative file [ECF 172] and further that the parties' responses to The New York Times Company's Motion to Intervene [ECF 176], currently due on January 25, 2022, be extended to February 8, 2022.