Miller v. Clark County

1 SAO Jonathan B. Lee, Esq.

2 Nevada Bar No. 13524 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Phone: (702) 444-4444 Fax: (702) 444-4455 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff Mack Miller 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA MACK MILLER, an individual; CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO vs. EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, a political subdivision; DOE CLARK COUNTY (First Request) 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, 20 Defendants.

CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of State of Nevada, Cross-claimant, vs. PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company.

Cross-defendant, 28 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 2 The parties have participated in the following discovery to date: 3 1. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 4 2. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 5 3. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 6 4. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 7 5. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 8 6. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; 9 7. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 10 8. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; M1 9. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 12 10. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 13 11. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 14 12. Defendant Preventative Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplementa | disclosures; 16 13. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Preventiv "7 Measures; 18 14. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents t | Preventive Measures; 20 15. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Preventive Measures; 21 16. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se | of Requests for Admissions; 23 17. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se | of Requests for Production of Documents; 25 18. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se | of Interrogatories; 27 19. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 28 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 t | Plaintiff; 3 22. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests fo | Admissions; 5 23. ‘Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests fo | Production of Documents; 7 24. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories; 8 25. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 9 26. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 10 27. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Production of Document 1! to Plaintiff; 12 28. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests fo | Admissions; 14 29. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests fo «= 15 | Production of Documents; 16 30. ‘Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set o Interrogatories; 18 31. — Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Preventive Measures; 19 32. Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 20 33. Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Preventive Measures; 21 34. Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 22 35. — Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 23 36. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County; 24 37. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests fo | Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 26 38. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories t | Defendant Clark County; 28 39. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests fo | Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 2 40. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests fo | Production to Defendant Clark County; and 4 41. The pending motion before the Court for leave to take Plaintiffs depositio | pursuant to FRCP 30(2)(B). Mr. Miller was recently incarcerated. See ECF No. 14.

6 {I DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 7 1. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiffs First Set o | Interrogatories and Request for Production;!

9 2. Deposition of Plaintiff; 10 3. Deposition of newly added Defendant Marco Solorio; 11 4. Deposition of newly added Defendant Leonard Morris; 12 5. Depositions of other fact witnesses present at the County Commission meetin | during the subject incident; z 14 6. Supplemental FRCP 26 disclosures; mn 1S 7. Expert disclosures; 16 8. Deposition of parties’ treating physicians and/or experts; “47 9. Any additional discovery that is necessary as the parties proceed through discovery.

18 |TH. REASONS Wiy DISCOVERY NOT COMPLETED WITHIN TIME SET BY DISCOVERY PLAN 19 A motion to extend deadlines articulated in the court’s scheduling order must be supporte | by a showing of good cause. See Local Rule 26-3; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 21 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause to extend a deadline exists if it cannot reasonabl | be met despite the diligence of the party seeking extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In the instan | matter, all parties have diligently attempted to comply with the Court’s scheduling order 24 however, due to recent developments that have transpired during litigation, the parties hav | determined they will be unable to obtain unable to obtain and produce key evidence related to th | incident and alleged damages, which then deprives the parties and their respective experts of acces ei Counsel for Preventative Measures has required an extension of the original deadline(s) for the foregoin discovery to obtain the information and documents responsive the pending discovery requests.

1! |to all evidence to formulate their opinions, complete their evaluations and prepare their report |accordingly, as well as impairs counsels ability to reach a proper determination as to furthe | discovery needed. Within the past month the following has transpired: 4 1. On October 10, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Mr. Miller’s request to amen |his complaint to add Defendants Marco Solorio and Leonard Morris. ECF No. 15. Mr. Mille |subsequently filed the First Amended Complaint the following day. ECF No. 17. Service of th | first amended complaint and summonses is pending, and the newly added defendants have yet t | file a responsive pleading.

9 2. Mr. Miller was recently incarcerated and is currently an inmate at Southern Dese | Correctional Center. On October 2, 2023, Defendant Clark County filed a motion for leave to tak |Mr. Miller’s deposition. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of non-opposition o | October 18, 2023. ECF No. 24. The parties are simply awaiting an order from the Court wit respect to the request to take Mr. Miller’s deposition.

14 3. On October 16, 2023, Defendant Clark County moved to amend the Crossclaim that 1 J|asserted against Defendant Preventative Measures. ECF No. 19. The Court has not issued a rulin | on pending motion yet.

In sum, the parties cannot meet the expert deadline and complete discovery within th 18 current dates due to the reasons above. The parties have worked diligently in their attempts t | schedule Mr. Miller’s deposition (after his recent incarceration). Further, with the recent additio |of the new defendants, additional time is necessary to allow the newly added defendants th | opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s allegations and conduct the necessary discovery to defen | against the claims asserted against them in them in this matter. The requested extension will ensur |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.

26 wee wee wee |IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 2 Based on the foregoing, the proposed schedule for completing discovery is as follows: 3 Discovery Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline 4 Motion to Amend/Add Parties Plaintiff's Initial Expert 11.13.2023 02.12.2024 5 Disclosures All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 12.13.2023 03.12.2024 6 Discovery Cut-Off Date 01.12.2024 04.11.2024 7 02.12.2024 05.13.2024 | Dated this 7" day of November, 2023. Dated this 7" day of November, 2023.

9 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY | /s/Jonathan B. Lee /s/ Joel K. Browning | Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. | Nevada Bar Number 13524 Joel K. Browning, Esq.

801 South Fourth Street Nevada Bar No. 14489 13. | Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Suite 5075 Attorneys for Plaintiff Las Vegas, Nevada 89155 Attorneys for Defendant, Clark County mn 1S Dated this 7" day of November, 2023. = 16 | TYSON & MENDES on /s/ Russell D. Christian Russell D. Christian, Esq.

19 | Nevada Bar No. 11785 2835 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 140 20 Henderson, Nevada 89052 5, | Attorneys for Defendant, Preventive Measures Security Firm, LLC * ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: 11/9/2023 ) O <A AM<(~ 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE