Avitia De La Vega v. Ayman Enterprises, Inc.

1 WNeIvLaLdaI ABMar NHo. .P 6R7U83I TT, ESQ.

2 JOSEPH MESERVY, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 14088 BARRON & PRUITT, LLP 3890 West Ann Road North Las Vegas, Nevada 89031 Telephone: (702) 870-3940 Facsimile: (702) 870-3950 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Ayman Enterprises, INC. and Clarence Eugene Mitchell 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA EDGAR AVITIA DE LA VEGA, an Case No.: 2:23-cv-00865-RFB-MDC individual, Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO vs. EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (Third Request) AYMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., a foreign corporation; CLARENCE EUGENE MITCHELL, II, an individual; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.

Defendants AYMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., and CLARENCE EUGENE MITCHELL, II, and Plaintiff EDGAR AVITIA DE LA VEGA, through their counsel, submit the foregoing stipulation and order to extend discovery deadlines (60 days) pursuant to LR 26-3 as follows: 23 1. Summary of Discovery Completed 24 To date, the following discovery has been completed in this case Item Date Completed 26 Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 26(a) Disclosures August 1, 2023 27 Defendants’ Initial Rule 26(a) Disclosures August 4, 2023 1 Disclosures 2 Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions, August 28, 2023 Requests for Production and Interrogatories to Defendant Ayman Enterprises 4 Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production and August 28, 2023 Interrogatories to Defendant Clarence Eugene Mitchell, II 6 Defendant Clarence Eugene Mitchell Answered November 8, 2023 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production and Interrogatories Defendant Ayman Enterprises Answered Plaintiff’s November 8, 2023 Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production and Interrogatories Defendants First Set of Requests for Admissions, November 13, 2023 Requests for Production, and Interrogatories to Plaintiff Plaintiff’s Responds to Defendants’ First Set of December 13, 2023 13 Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, and Interrogatories to Plaintiff Defendants Second Set of Requests for Production December 26, 2023 Defendant’s Second Set of Requests for Production December 26, 2023 16 of Documents to Plaintiff Deposition of Plaintiff Edgar Avitia De La Vega January 19, 2024 Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Second Set of January 25, 2024 Request for Production 19 Deposition of George Gluck, M.D. February 7, 2024 20 Deposition of George Tsao, DO February 14, 2024 2. Discovery Remaining The following discovery remains to be completed: a) Continued Deposition of George Tsao, DO, scheduled for April 3, 2024; b) Additional Written Discovery; 25 c) Deposition of Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for Defendant; 26 d) Deposition(s) of percipient witnesses; 27 e) Deposition(s) of treating physicians; 1 g) Deposition(s) of all expert witnesses 3. Reason Why Discovery Was Not Completed Pursuant to LR 26-3, a “stipulation to extend a discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension.” LR 26-3. “‘Good cause’ is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Typically, good cause is met when there is an absence of bad faith or prejudice to the non-moving party. Id., at 1260.

Here, the parties seek to extend the rebuttal expert designation, discovery cut-off, dispositive motion deadline, and due date for the Joint Pre-Trial Order. All these deadlines are more than 21 days out. The parties also seek to extend the expert designation deadline which is a little less than 21 days out.

In this matter, the parties believe that good cause and excusable neglect to extend the discovery deadlines exists. Defendants have been diligently pursuing radiology images from Plaintiff’s treaters, which experts require to opine on Plaintiff’s treatment. And, while George Tsao, DO’s deposition was being taken on February 14, 2024, there were technical difficulties that led to a significant shortening of the deposition contrary to the original plans of the parties. The parties have since rescheduled a continuance of the deposition of George Tsao, DO, for April 3, 2024, to finish the deposition. But, the Expert Disclosure deadline is set for March 16, 2024, and at the moment, the parties still do not have Dr. Tsao’s February 14, 2024 deposition transcript, and will not be able to finish Dr. Tsao’s deposition until after the Expert Disclosure deadline. Accordingly, the parties are now seeking an extension to allow experts access to that deposition transcript before the disclosure deadline.

22 /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 Furthermore, experts would like sufficient time to review radiology images, and the deposition transcripts of Plaintiff, George Gluck, M.D., and George Tsao, DO. Additional time is needed to obtain and review such information, which will assist the experts in preparing their opinions. Based on these reasons, the parties submit that a brief extension is needed and that the requested extension is absent any bad faith. Lastly, the parties submit that since this extension is stipulated, there is no prejudice to either party.

4. Proposed Schedule for Completing Discovery Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter an order setting the following discovery plan and scheduling order dates: Event Former Deadline New Deadline Amend pleadings or add parties 11 CLOSED CLOSED Expert Designations 12 March 16, 2024 May 15, 2024 Rebuttal Expert Designations April 15, 2024 June 14, 2024 Discovery Cut-off May 15, 2024 July 14, 2024 Dispositive Motions June 15, 2024 August 14, 2024 Joint Pre-Trial Order July 15, 2024 September 13, 2024 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 Counsel add that the requested extension of discovery deadlines is interposed not for purpos || of delay, but for the purposes set forth above.

DATED: February 27, 2024 DATED: February 27, 2024 MAIER GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES PT LAW /s/ Joseph A. Gutierrez || By: By: _/s/ Pengxiang Tian JOSEPH A. GUTIERREZ, ESQ. CALVIN P. TIAN, ESQ.

7 Nevada Bar No. 9046 Nevada Bar No. 15662 g JASON R MAIER, ESQ. 2820 South Jones Boulevard, Unit 1 Nevada Bar No. 8557 Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 9 STEPHEN G. CLOUGH, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff Nevada Bar No. 10549 10 8816 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: February 27, 2024 14 BARRON & PRUITT, LLP By: _/s/ Joseph Meservy _ 16 WILLIAM H. PRUITT, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 6783 BRE 47 JOSEPH MESERVY, ESQ.

Z Nevada Bar No. 14088 18 3890 West Ann Road North Las Vegas, Nevada 89031 19 Attorneys for Defendant IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties submitted this 22 stipulation with the wrong case number (2:23- 23 cv-00865-RFB-VCF). The Court cautions the parties to include the correct case on all future 24 filings. □□ Ke 7 25 4.

A 26 Joe fi oNTTED Ares TRApERODGE 27 UNITED S#ATES “T) ESUDGE 28 ( DATED: 2-28-24