Anderson v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

1 MCNUTT LAW FIRM, P.C.

Daniel R. McNutt, Esq., Bar No. 7815 Matthew C. Wolf, Esq., Bar No. 10801 TG, would you please Mark D. Hesiak, Esq., Bar No. 12397 provide your input?

11441 Allerton Park Drive, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Tel.: (702) 384-1170 / Fax.: (702) 384-5529 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for LVMPD Defendants 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA KRISTINA ANDERSON, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01162-APG-DJA Plaintiff, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of Stipulation and Order to Stay Pretrial the State of Nevada; OFFICER W. BET- Deadlines TENCOURT, individually and as a police officer; DETECTIVE C. GIFFORD, indi- vidually and as a police officer; DETEC- TIVE WEGHORST, individually and as a police officer; Defendant PICERNE SUN- SET, LLC, dba LEVEL 25 AT SUNSET; DRPRMP MANAGER, LLC; DOE APARTMENT EMPLOYEES 1-25; ROE POLICE OFFICERS 26-50; Defendant.

22 Plaintiff Kristina Anderson, through the Ladah Law Firm, the LVMPD Defendants,1 through the McNutt Law Firm, and the Apartment Defendants,2 through Tyson & Mendes LLP, stipulate and agree to stay all pretrial deadlines in the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling The LVMPD Defendants refers to Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 27 (LVMPD), Detective C. Gifford, Detective Weghorst, and Officer W. Bettencourt.

2 The Apartment Defendants refers to Defendants DRPRMP MANAGER LLC and Picerne Sunset, Order dated August 19, 2024, Dkt. 25, until the resolution of (1) the LVMPD Defendants’ mo- tion to dismiss filed on June 25, 2024 (Dkt. 2); and (2) Ladah Law Firm’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Kristina Anderson filed on November 25, 2024 (Dkt. 32).

4 Good cause supports the stay request. Ladah Law Firm has lost contact with Plaintiff Kristina Anderson. Consequently, Anderson has not responded to written discovery pro- pounded by the LVMPD Defendants and the Apartment Defendants, and they have been unable to depose Anderson. The LVMPD Defendants and the Apartment Defendants must receive Anderson’s written discovery responses and depose her by serving initial expert disclosures.

9 Furthermore, the district court’s ruling on the LVMPD Defendants’ motion to dismiss could change the nature of the case, including, without limitation, the remaining parties and claims for relief. For that reason, it would promote judicial efficiency and economy for the parties to make their initial expert disclosures following that ruling. Should the district court deny the motion to dismiss, its rulings will provide clarification and guidance regarding the remaining issues, if any, necessitating discovery. Postponing discovery until the district court issues its ruling will allow the parties to conserve time and resources by focusing discovery on the issues identified in the ruling. It will also eliminate the need for this Court to address dis- covery disputes on issues that could be altered or narrowed by the ruling.

18 Within seven days of the last order resolving the LVMPD Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Ladah Law Firm’s motion to withdraw, the parties will submit a new stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order.

21 (continued on next page) This stipulation is the parties’ first request to stay discovery, has been submitted in goox || faith, is not interposed for delay, and is not filed for an improper purpose.

3 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4 || MCNUTT LAW FIRM, P.C. LADAH LAW FIRM || 4/ Dan McNutt /s/ Michael T. Nixon || Dan McNutt, Esq. (Bar No. 7815) RAMZY PAUL LADAH, ESQ.

Matt Wolf, Esq. (Bar No. 10801) Nevada Bar No. 11405 || 11441 Allerton Park Drive, Suite 100 MICHAEL T. NIXON, ESQ.

Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Nevada Bar No. 012839 || Counsel for the LVMPD Defendants 517 S. Third Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 ? Counsel for Plaintiff |} TYSON & MENDES LLP || /s/ Griffith H. Hayes GRIFFITH H. HAYES |) Nevada Bar No. 7374 14 CHRISTOPHER A. LUND Nevada Bar No. 12435 || 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052 || Counsel for the Apartment Defendants 17 The Court finds that the parties have demonstrated good cause to stay discovery. See 18 Schrader v. Wynn, 2021 WL 4810324, (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021).

19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED.

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven days of the last order resolving the LVMPD Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Ladah Law Firm's motion to withdraw, the parties will 21 . □ submit a new stipulated discovery plan and scheduling grder.

22 \) Oo 5 .

23 SAA) ) DANIEL J. ALBREGTS |, 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: January 16, 2025