Morales v. Minev

Attorney General JANET L. MERRILL (Bar No. 10736) Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-3370 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Wilson Bernales, Michael Minev, and Calvin Johnson 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA SERGIO MORALES, Case No. 2:22-cv-00387-RFB-EJY 13 Plaintiff, v. STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY MICHAEL MINEV, et al., AND OTHER DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST) 16 Defendants.

18 Defendants Wilson Bernales, Michael Minev, and Calvin Johnson, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Janet L. Merrill Esq., Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, and Plaintiff Sergio Morales, by and through Milan Chatterjee Esq. of Milan’s Legal, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the time for discovery and other deadlines as set forth herein.

23 This is the Parties’ first requested modification of the Scheduling Order since the appearance of pro bono counsel, Mr. Chatterjee, Esq.

25 There are both good cause and excusable neglect for this Court to grant an extension of discovery. LR 26-3.

27 /// /// I. CBEARCKTIGFRICOAUTNIDON REGARDING MEET AND CONFER AND The Parties hereby declare and certify that they met and conferred via telephone on March 25, 2024, and agreed that an extension of discovery to October 2, 2024, would benefit both Parties for the reasons set forth below.

6 The Parties respectfully request another one hundred and eighty (180) days for discovery. This request is based on a variety of circumstances. Milan Chatterjee is acting as pro bono counsel. ECF No. 53. Upon his appearance, the Parties submitted a Proposed Plan and Scheduling Order. ECF No. 55. The Honorable Court granted the Proposed Plan and issued the Scheduling Order, setting a discovery cut-off for April 5, 2024. ECF No. 56. Since such time, Mr. Chatterjee has encountered scheduling conflicts and difficulties in communicating with his incarcerated client and his client’s relatives, which has slowed down efforts. Mr. Chatterjee has been in communication with the Legal Aid of Southern Nevada in regard to certain matters for representing his client—including to obtain necessary resources to prosecute this case—and the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada has been delayed in their response (though they are well-aware of Mr. Chatterjee’s several communication attempts and requests for necessary resources). Mr. Chatterjee has also been required to travel abroad on two occasions for prolonged periods, including for a death in his family.

20 As can be seen by the docket, the Parties have been focusing their efforts and communication on the medical treatment of Mr. Sergio Morales. On February 15, 2024, Defendants filed a Status Report with certain medical records submitted under seal. ECF 59, ECF No. 60 and ECF No. 61. Mr. Morales’ treatment continues and as such, additional time is needed in relation to discovery and alleged damages.

25 II. STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO-DATE 26 Both sides have completed written disclosures.

27 /// /// III. DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 2 In light of the circumstances listed above, the Parties require additional time to complete discovery including written discovery requests, and if necessary, depositions and the retention of expert witnesses.

5 IV. STATEMENT OF GOOD CAUSE AND EXCUSABLE NEGLECT 6 To demonstrate good cause, the parties must show “that, even in the exercise of due diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. City of Anaheim, CV10-03997-MMM-JEMX, 2011 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)).

11 Prejudice to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of prejudice is “not a prerequisite.” Id. 13 Excusable neglect, depends on “four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000) 17 The Parties have specifically met and conferred and agreed to extend the discovery deadline. The Parties’ focus has been on the ongoing medical treatment of Mr. Sergio Morales. Completion of discovery is best suited following upcoming treatment.

20 Both Parties will benefit from an extension, and neither party will be prejudiced by the additional time to conduct discovery. Therefore, both good cause and excusable neglect are present to extend discovery.

23 V. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DISCOVERY 25 The Parties propose the following schedule for completion of all remaining discovery and the filing of any dispositive motions: 27 • The deadline for completion of discovery will be extended to October 2, 2024.

28 /// 1 ° In accordance with Rule 26(a)(2) and Local Rule 26-1(b)(3), initial disclosures 2 identifying experts shall be made sixty (60) days prior to the discovery cut- 3 off date, and therefore, not later than Monday, August 5, 2024, and 4 disclosures identifying rebuttal experts shall be made thirty (30) days after 5 the initial disclosure of experts and, therefore, not later than Wednesday, 6 September 4, 2024.

7 ° The deadline to file any dispositive motions will be extended until November 8 1, 2024.

9 ° The deadline to file a Joint Pre-Trial order will be extended until December 10 2, 2024, or, if dispositive motions are filed, until thirty (30) days after the 11 entry of any order on the dispositive motions.

12 CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing, good cause and excusable neglect exist, and the parties || respectfully request that this Court extend the deadlines as set forth above.

15 || DATED this 27th day of March 2024. DATED this 27th day of March 2024.

16 || MILAN’S LEGAL OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL || By: Milan Chatterjee By: Janet L. Merrill 18 Milan Chatterjee, Esq. Janet L. Merrill, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 15159 Nevada Bar No. 10736 19 Milan’s Legal Nevada Attorney General’s Office 20 300 South Fourth Street 555 E. Washington Avenue Suite 900 Suite 3900 21 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants IT ISSO ORDERED 25 a a4 . Apc ol 26 UNITED S MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: March 27, 2024