Opinion
2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA
11-09-2023
MACK MILLER, an individual; Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, a political subdivision; DOE CLARK COUNTY OFFICERS, in their personal capacities; DOE PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS, in their personal capacities; PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; MARCO SOLORIO, individually; LEONARD MORRIS, individually; ROE PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY; DOES 1 through 20; ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 through 20, inclusive jointly and severally, Defendants. CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of State of Nevada, Cross-claimant, v. PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company. Cross-defendant,
SAO Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13524 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM Attorney for Plaintiff Mack Miller TYSON & MENDES Russell D. Christian, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11785 Attorneys for Defendant, Preventive Measures Security Firm, LLC CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY Joel K. Browning, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14489 Attorneys for Defendant, Clark County
SAO
Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13524
RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM
Attorney for Plaintiff Mack Miller
TYSON & MENDES
Russell D. Christian, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11785
Attorneys for Defendant, Preventive Measures Security Firm, LLC
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Joel K. Browning, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14489
Attorneys for Defendant, Clark County
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel that the discovery deadlines shall be extended in this matter.
I. Discovery Completed to Date
The parties have participated in the following discovery to Dated:
1. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures;
2. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures;
3. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures;
4. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures;
5. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures;
6. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures;
7. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures;
8. Defendant Clark County's FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures;
9. Defendant Clark County's FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures;
10. Defendant Preventative Measures' FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures;
11. Defendant Preventative Measures' FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures;
12. Defendant Preventative Measures' FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures;
13. Defendant Clark County's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Preventive Measures;
14. Defendant Clark County's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Preventive Measures;
15. Defendant Clark County's First Set of Interrogatories to Preventive Measures;
16. Defendant Preventive Measures' Response to Defendant Clark County's First Set of Requests for Admissions;
17. Defendant Preventive Measures' Response to Defendant Clark County's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents;
18. Defendant Preventive Measures' Response to Defendant Clark County's First Set of Interrogatories;
19. Defendant Clark County's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff;
20. Defendant Clark County's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff;
21. Defendant Clark County's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff;
22. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Clark County's First Set of Requests for Admissions;
23. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Clark County's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents;
24. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Clark County's First Set of Interrogatories;
25. Defendant Preventive Measures' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff;
26. Defendant Preventive Measures' First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff;
27. Defendant Preventive Measures' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff;
28. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests for Admissions;
29. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests for Production of Documents;
30. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Interrogatories;
31. Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Preventive Measures;
32. Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures;
33. Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Preventive Measures;
34. Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County;
35. Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County;
36. Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County;
37. Defendant Preventive Measures' Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures;
38. Defendant Clark County's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County;
39. Defendant Clark County's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County;
40. Defendant Clark County's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County; and
41. The pending motion before the Court for leave to take Plaintiff's deposition pursuant to FRCP 30(2)(B). Mr. Miller was recently incarcerated. See ECF No. 14.
II. Discovery Remaining To Be Completed
1. Defendant Preventive Measures' Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production;
Counsel for Preventative Measures has required an extension of the original deadline(s) for the foregoing discovery to obtain the information and documents responsive the pending discovery requests.
2. Deposition of Plaintiff;
3. Deposition of newly added Defendant Marco Solorio;
4. Deposition of newly added Defendant Leonard Morris;
5. Depositions of other fact witnesses present at the County Commission meeting during the subject incident;
6. Supplemental FRCP 26 disclosures;
7. Expert disclosures;
8. Deposition of parties' treating physicians and/or experts;
9. Any additional discovery that is necessary as the parties proceed through discovery.
III. Reasons Why Discovery Not Completed Within Time Set By Discovery Plan
A motion to extend deadlines articulated in the court's scheduling order must be supported by a showing of good cause. See Local Rule 26-3; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause to extend a deadline exists if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In the instant matter, all parties have diligently attempted to comply with the Court's scheduling order -however, due to recent developments that have transpired during litigation, the parties have determined they will be unable to obtain unable to obtain and produce key evidence related to the incident and alleged damages, which then deprives the parties and their respective experts of access to all evidence to formulate their opinions, complete their evaluations and prepare their reports accordingly, as well as impairs counsels ability to reach a proper determination as to further discovery needed. Within the past month the following has transpired:
1. On October 10, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Mr. Miller's request to amend his complaint to add Defendants Marco Solorio and Leonard Morris. ECF No. 15. Mr. Miller subsequently filed the First Amended Complaint the following day. ECF No. 17. Service of the first amended complaint and summonses is pending, and the newly added defendants have yet to file a responsive pleading.
2. Mr. Miller was recently incarcerated and is currently an inmate at Southern Desert Correctional Center. On October 2, 2023, Defendant Clark County filed a motion for leave to take Mr. Miller's deposition. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff's counsel filed a notice of non-opposition on October 18, 2023. ECF No. 24. The parties are simply awaiting an order from the Court with respect to the request to take Mr. Miller's deposition.
3. On October 16, 2023, Defendant Clark County moved to amend the Crossclaim that it asserted against Defendant Preventative Measures. ECF No. 19. The Court has not issued a ruling on pending motion yet.
In sum, the parties cannot meet the expert deadline and complete discovery within the current dates due to the reasons above. The parties have worked diligently in their attempts to schedule Mr. Miller's deposition (after his recent incarceration). Further, with the recent addition of the new defendants, additional time is necessary to allow the newly added defendants the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's allegations and conduct the necessary discovery to defend against the claims asserted against them in them in this matter. The requested extension will ensure all parties have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claims and defenses on the merits. Therefore, and as set forth below, due diligence and good cause can be shown to allow the Court, in its discretion, to extend the remaining deadlines as requested. ... ... ...
IV. Proposed Schedule for Completing Discovery
Based on the foregoing, the proposed schedule for completing discovery is as follows:
Discovery Deadline
Current Deadline
Proposed Deadline
Motion to Amend/Add Parties
No extension
No extension
Plaintiff's Initial Expert Disclosures
11.13.2023
02.12.2024
All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
12.13.2023
03.12.2024
Discovery Cut-Off Date
01.12.2024
04.11.2024
Dispositive Motions
02.12.2024
05.13.2024
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.