Garay v. City of Las Vegas

1 Belinda Escobosa Helzer (pro hac vice) Adrian Hernandez (pro hac vice) Ernest Herrera (pro hac vice) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND S. Spring St., 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 bescobosa@malde f.org [email protected] [email protected] F.Travis Buchanan, Esq.

8 NV Bar No. 9371 The Cochran Firm – Las Vegas 701 E. Bridger, Suite 540 Las Vegas, NV 89101 10 Telephone: (702) 331-5478 Facsimile: (702) 629-6919 11 [email protected] 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ALICIA INES MOYA GARAY, JUAN Case No. 2:20-cv-00119-GMN-EJY JAIME LOPEZ-JIMENEZ, and ARRIBA LAS VEGAS WORKER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CENTER, TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 19 Plaintiffs, (SECOND REQUEST) 20 vs. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a municipality; MICHELE FREEMAN, in her official capacity as City of Las Vegas Chief of Department of Public Safety; BANANTO SMITH, in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of Detention Services; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 25 Defendants.

1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 2 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-3, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend the Discovery Deadlines in the above- captioned case. Plaintiffs Alicia Ines Moya Garay and Juan Jaime Lopez-Jimenez (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants City of Las Vegas, et al. (“Defendants”) stipulate and respectfully request a sixty (60) day extension of the current scheduling order deadlines. In support of this Stipulation and Request, the parties state as follows: A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 10 Plaintiffs Alicia Ines Moya Garay and Juan Jaime Lopez-Jimenez (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants City of Las Vegas, et al. (“Defendants”) made their initial disclosures on June 16, 2020.

12 Plaintiffs propounded their First Set of Interrogatories on August 5, 2020. On August 31, 2020, Defendants requested an extension to respond to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, which Plaintiffs granted. On September 2, 2020 Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Admission and Requests for Production of Documents. On September 10, 2020, Defendants served their responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. On September 24, 2020, Plaintiffs clarified their First Set of Interrogatories. On October 1, 2020, Defendants served their responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Admission. On October 15, 2020, Defendants served their responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. On October 20, 2020, Defendants served their responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories.

22 B. DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 23 The parties in this case continue to propound and respond to written discovery and must conduct depositions, in addition to making their expert disclosures.

26 C. REASON FOR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES Plaintiffs intend to seek leave of Court to amend the First Amended Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants, and the roles they played, once their identities and/or manner of participation is ascertained. An extension of the discovery deadlines requires good and just cause. See LR 26-3; see also Chambers Practices of The Honorable Gloria M.

3 Navarro, United States District Judge at 1. A party may show good cause to modify a discovery schedule date “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

6 Prejudice to “the part y opposing the modification” may also be relevant. See id. 7 Plaintiffs continue diligently to try to ascertain the names and capacities of the DOE Defendants through written discovery. Plaintiffs granted Defendants a one week extension to respond to their First Set of Interrogatories. Defendants served their responses on September 10, 2020. Defendants raised numerous objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. The parties met and conferred on September 14, 2020, and agreed that Plaintiffs would clarify their First Set of Interrogatories to allow Defendants to provide full responses. On September 24, 2020, Plaintiffs clarified their First Set of Interrogatories and requested Defendants’ responses by October 7, 2020.

14 On September 30, 2020, Defendants indicated that they anticipated further objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and would not be able to provide complete responses by October 7, 2020. The parties met and conferred on October 6, 2020 and agreed that Defendants would provide full responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories by October 19, 2020. On October 20, 2020, Defendants served their responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and raised several objections. The parties will meet and confer to resolve the ongoing discovery dispute.

20 Plaintiffs cannot move for leave to file an amended complaint that alleges a plausible claim for relief against each defendant unless it substitutes the true names and capacities of “those who personally participated in the deprivation of his right” for the DOE Defendants currently named.

23 See Cepero v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, No. 211CV01421JADGWF, 2018 WL 5043775, at *7 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 211CV01421JADGWF, 2018 25 WL 5726176 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2018) (citing Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002)).

26 Despite Plaintiffs’ diligence in this regard, as demonstrated by discovery requests and the parties’ efforts to confer on the discovery that seeks to identify the relevant officers, Plaintiffs have been unable to ascertain the true names and capacities of the officers. Plaintiffs will therefore be unable to move for leave to file an amended complaint by the current deadline of October 27, 2020.

3 Further, based on the number of witnesses identified in Defendants’ initial disclosures and discovery responses, the parties have discussed the possibility of seeking leave of court under Fed. R. Civ. P 30(a)(2)(A)(i) to take more than ten (10) depositions. The parties respectfully request an extension of the disc overy cut-off date, in the event that the parties stipulate to taking more than ten depositions at a later time.

8 Because of Plaintiffs’ diligence and because Defendants do not oppose the request, the parties demonstrate good and just cause for the extension. The parties respectfully request a sixty (60) day extension of the current scheduling order deadlines in accordance with the proposed scheduling order below.

13 D. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 14 1.Initial Disclosures June 16, 2020 15 2.Discovery Cut-off date March 26, 2021 16 3.Amending pleadings / adding parties December 28, 2020 17 4.Merits experts’ disclosures due January 29, 2021 18 5.Rebuttal experts’ disclosures due March 1, 2021 19 6.Dispositive Motions due April 26, 2021 Dated: October 27, 2020 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE BRYAN SCOTT AND EDUCATIONAL FUND City Attorney By: /s/ Adrian Hernandez_ By: /s/_Seth T. Floyd_ Belinda Escobosa Helzer Deputy City Attorney Adrian Hernandez Nevada Bar No. 11959 Ernest Herrera Philip R. Byrnes MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE Senior Litigation Counsel AND EDUCATIONAL FUND Nevada Bar No. 166 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 Attorneys for Defendants F.Travis Buchanan, Esq.

NV Bar No. 9371 The Cochran Firm – Las Vegas E. Bridger, Suite 540 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 33 1-5478 Facsimile: (702) 629-6919 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs IT IS SO ORDERED: _____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 DATED: October 28, 2020