Miller v. Clark County

SAO Jonathan B. Lee, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 13524 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Phone: (702) 444-4444 Fax: (702) 444-4455 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA MACK MILLER, an individual; 10 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO vs. 12 EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, a political subdivision; DOE CLARK COUNTY (Third 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, Defendants.

21 CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of State of Nevada, 23 Cross-claimant, vs. PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company.

27 Cross-defendant, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, by an: | through their respective counsel that the discovery deadlines shall be extended in this matter.

3 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE!

4 The parties have participated in the following discovery to date: 5 1. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 6 2. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 7 3. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 8 4. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 9 5. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 10 6. Plaintiff's FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; M1 7. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 12 8. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Seventh Supplemental disclosures; 13 9. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Eighth Supplemental disclosures; z 14 10... Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; mn 1S 11. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 16 12. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; “47 13. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 18 14. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 19 15. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 20 16. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 21 17. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 22 18. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Preventiv | Measures; 24 19. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents t | Preventive Measures; 26 20. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Preventive Measures; ei The numbered paragraphs in bold indicate tbe discovery that has been completed since the last □□□□□□□□□□ extension.

21. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se | of Requests for Admissions; 3 22. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se 4 Requests for Production of Documents; 5 23. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Se | of Interrogatories; 7 24. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 8 25. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 9 26. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents t | Plaintiff; M1 27. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests fo | Admissions; 13 28. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests fo 14 | Production of Documents; mn 1S 29. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories; 16 30. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; “47 31. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 18 32. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Production of Document | to Plaintiff; 20 33. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests fo | Admissions; 22 34. ‘Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests fo | Production of Documents; 24 35. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set o | Interrogatories; 26 36. Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Preventive Measures; 27 37. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 28 38. — Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Preventive Measures; 1 39. —— Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 2 40. _ Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 3 41. Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County; 4 42. | Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests fo | Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 6 43. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories t Defendant Clark County; 8 44. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests fo Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 10 45. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests fo | Production to Defendant Clark County; 12 46. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiffs First Set o | Interrogatories and Request for Production; z 14 47. Deposition of Plaintiff (completed February 21, 2024); 48. Deposition of Kate Murray (completed February 15, 2024); 16 49. Deposition of Brian Cooperman (completed February 15, 2024); 50. Deposition of Elando Johnson (completed February 15, 2024); 18 51. _—_— ~Plaintiff?s FRCP 26(a)(1) Ninth Supplemental disclosures; 19 52. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 20 53. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; 21 54. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 22 55. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplementa | disclosures; and 24 56. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplementa | disclosures.

26 DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 27 1. Deposition of Defendant Marco Solorio; 28 2. Deposition of Defendant Leonard Morris; 1 3. Deposition of Chief James Rogers (currently noticed for May 9, 2024); 2 4. Deposition of Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 30(b)(6) designee(s); 3 5. Deposition of David Sutton/FRCP 30(b)(6) designee(s) for Defendant □□□□□□□□□□ Measures; 5 6. Depositions of other fact witnesses present at the County Commission meetin | during the subject incident; 7 7. Supplemental FRCP 26 disclosures; 8 8. Expert disclosures; 9 9. Deposition of parties’ treating physicians and/or experts; and 10 10. Any additional discovery that is necessary as the parties proceed through discovery.

11 |TII. REASONS Wiy DISCOVERY NOT COMPLETED WITHIN TIME SET BY DISCOVERY PLAN 12 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., 1975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause to extend a deadline exists if it cannot reasonabl !5 met despite the diligence of the party seeking extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In the instan 16 matter, all parties have diligently attempted to comply with the Court’s scheduling order however, the parties have determined they will be unable to obtain unable to obtain and produc | key evidence related to the incident and alleged damages, which then deprives the parties and thei 19 respective experts of access to all evidence to formulate their opinions, complete their evaluation |and prepare their reports accordingly, as well as impairs counsels ability to reach a prope | determination as to further discovery needed.

22 On January 29, 2024, the parties entered a stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines 1 | this case primarily based on the recent addition of two defendants, Marco Solorio and Leonar | Morris (i.e., the former Preventive Measures security that physically escorted Mr. Miller from th | Clark County Government Center), and to accommodate the depositions of Plaintiff Mack Mille 26 (who has been confined Southern Desert Correctional Center since July 2023) and the former an | current employees of Defendant Clark County and Preventive Measures. Since the parties entere |that stipulation: (1) Defendants Marco Solorio and Leonard Morris have answered Plaintiff | amended complaint; (2) Mr. Miller has been deposed; (3) Clark County employees Kate Murray, Brian Cooperman, and Elando Johnson have been deposed; (4) the depositions of James Roger 3 the FRCP 30(b)(6) designee of Clark County has been coordinated; and (5) the parties hav served several supplemental disclosures, identifying additional witnesses and documents.

5 However, the parties have not been able to secure the depositions of Defendants Marc | Solorio and Leonard Morris. Plaintiff counsel has tried to set the depositions of Defendants Solori |and Morris since the end of 2023 — to no avail. Defendants Solorio and Morris are currentl |represented by Russell Christian, Esq. Mr. Christian has diligently attempted to obtain th deposition availability of Defendants Solorio and Morris; however, he has not been able t 10 successfully secure the deposition availability of Defendants Solorio and Morris. Nevertheless | these particular depositions will be critical to the claims and defenses in the instant action and wil |have a direct impact on the opinions of the parties’ retained experts.* Further, Defendan | Preventive Measures needs additional time to complete written discovery that was served in th | fall of 2023. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the discovery deadlines in this matte = be extended by an additional sixty (60) days. requested extension will ensure all parties have a ful | and fair opportunity to litigate the claims and defenses on the merits. Therefore, and as set fort "7 below, due diligence and good cause can be shown to allow the Court, in its discretion, to exten | the remaining deadlines as requested. ol. |.

28 | □□□ ? Plaintiff has retained Mark Meredith, a police practices and premises security expert in the instant matter.

1 |IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 2 Based on the foregoing, the proposed schedule for completing discovery is as follows: 3 Discovery Deadline Proposed Deadline 4 Deadline Motion to Amend/Add Parties 5 Initial Expert Disclosures 05.13.2024 07.12.2024 All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 06.10.2024 08.12.2024 6 Discovery Cut-Off Date 07.10.2024 09.10.2024 7 08.12.2024 10.10.2024 | Dated this day of May, 2024. Dated this _ day of May, 2024.

9 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY | /s/ Jonathan B. Lee /s/ | Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. Joel K. Browning, Esq. b Nevada Bar Number 13524 Nevada Bar No. 14489 South Fourth Street 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Suite 5075 13. | Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89155 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant, Clark County i | Datedthis day of April, 2024.

TYSON & MENDES /s/ ig | Russell D. Christian, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 11785 | 2835 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 140 Henderson, Nevada 89052 | Attorneys for Defendant, 5, | Preventive Measures Security Firm, LLC ORDER 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2024 25 \ DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE