11 NICHOLAS J. BOOS (SBN 16047) [email protected] 22 MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1450 33 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 646-4700 44 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 55 Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 66 Designation for Service Only: 77 Kristol Bradley Ginapp, (SBN 8468) Holley Driggs 88 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 99 [email protected] 1100 DANIEL M. DASTRUP, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 13677 1111 BOYACK LAW GROUP 1707 Village Center Circle, Suite 100 1122 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Phone: (702) 744-7474 1133 Fax: (702) 623-4746 [email protected] 1144 Attorneys for Plaintiff 1155 MICHAEL FRANCIS 1166 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1177 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 1188 MICHAEL FRANCIS; individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-02082-ART-NJK 1199 Plaintiff, JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 2200 TIME v. 2211 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE 2222 COMPANY dba PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY a LIBERTY 2233 MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES I through X, inclusive, 2244 Defendants. 2255 2266 2277 1 JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 2 Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-3, 3 Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Defendant”) and Plaintiff Michael Francis 4 (“Plaintiff”) (collectively, Defendant and Plaintiff are referred to as “the Parties”) jointly move 5 the Court for an order extending certain discovery-related deadlines—unrelated to hearings, 6 dispositive motions, or trial filings with the Court—by less than 30 days. This is the second 7 motion to extend the deadlines at issue. See ECF No. 11. In support thereof, the Parties state as 8 follows: 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 Though the Parties have engaged in written and document discovery to date, the Parties 11 have agreed and respectfully submit that good cause exists to extend the expert discovery 12 deadlines and final discovery cutoff deadline set by this Court by less than 30 days. The Parties 13 require a brief extension to finalize their experts’ reports, exchange them, and conduct the 14 necessary depositions of those experts. This extension will not impact any deadlines for hearings, 15 dispositive motions, or trial filings with the Court. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 17 “A request to extend deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order must be supported by a 18 showing of good cause for the extension.” Victor v. Walmart, Inc., No. 220CV01591JCMNJK, 19

, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2021). The “good cause” standard applies under both 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and Local Rule 26-3. Id. at n. 3. “‘Good cause’ is a non- 21 rigorous standard . . . .” Choate v. Nevada Att’y Gen., No. 216CV00813RFBGWF,

230048, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2021) (quoting Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, 23 1259 (9th Cir. 2010)). “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably 24 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Victor,

, at *2 25 (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992)). “The good 26 cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence.” Fields v. Williams, No. 27 217CV01725JADNJK,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 3, 2019) (citing Coleman v. 1 at *1. 2 Local Rule 26-3 requires that a motion or stipulation to extend deadlines also include: 3 (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; 4 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 5 (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not 6 completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and 7 (d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 8 II. ARGUMENT 9 A. Discovery Completed 10 The following discovery has occurred: 11  Initial Disclosures; 12  Defendant has propounded Requests for Production upon Plaintiff; 13  Defendant has propounded Interrogatories upon Plaintiff; 14  Plaintiff has responded to Defendant’s Requests for Production; 15  Plaintiff has responded to Defendant’s Interrogatories; 16  Plaintiff has produced documents approximately 700 pages of documents; 17  Defendant has produced approximately 2,800 pages of documents; 18  Defendant has engaged expert witnesses. 19 B. Discovery That Remains To Be Completed 20 The remaining items of discovery still need to be completed: 21  Exchange of expert reports; 22  Depositions of experts; 23  Deposition of Plaintiff; 24  Deposition of Defendant’s employees and representative(s); 25  Depositions of Plaintiff’s medical providers. 26 C. Reasons An Extension Is Needed 27 Despite the discovery conducted thus far, the Parties respectfully submit that the deadlines Parties’ motion for extension based on Plaintiff's continuing treatment for his alleged injuries, 2|| and Plaintiff's provision of new records reflecting additional treatment. See ECF Nos. 11, 12. 3|| Plaintiffs’ continuing treatment led to the production of additional documents and information, 4]| which—in turn—will have an impact on the expert testimony at issue in this case. Defendant has 5|| engaged multiple experts but the Parties have agreed that additional time is needed for their 6|| experts to finalize their reports. 7 This extension will have no impact on dispositive motion filings, hearings, trial filings, or 8|| the trial date. All of those dates will remain intact in line with the Court’s prior order. “The || discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the district court.” 10|| ProCare Hospice of Nevada, LLC v. OneCare Hospice, LLC,

, 176 (D. Nev. 2021) (quoting Sali v. Corona Reg. Med. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2018)). The Parties 12|| have cooperatively agreed that additional time for expert discovery—and the concomitant depositions—is needed based on the continuing treatment and nature of Plaintiff's alleged 14|| injuries. The extension sought here fosters the cooperative nature of discovery while leaving 15|| deadlines which require Court involvement unaffected. The Parties respectfully submit that good 16|| cause exists to extend the expert disclosure and discovery deadlines by less than 30 days. 17 D. Proposed Schedule 18 The Parties propose the following revised schedule: 19 20 2 22 2 24 25 26 27|| I. CONCLUSION 28 For the reasons stated above, the Parties respectfully request the Court enter an order

1]| extending certain deadlines currently set by the Court (ECF No. 12) by less than 30 days. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED:

4 ZK X a Nancy 3 oppe 5 United States Magistrate Judge Dated: July 11, 2023 4 Sy □□ ee 9 Dated: July 10, 2023 MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 10 /s/ Nicholas J. Boos 11 By: NICHOLAS J. BOOS Attorneys for Defendant 12 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 13 14 15 16 Dated: July 10, 2023 BOYACK LAW GROUP 17 /s/ Daniel M. Dastrup 18 By: Daniel M. Dastrup Attorneys for Plaintiff 19 MICHAEL FRANCIS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28