1 Patrick H. Hicks, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 004632 2 Michael D. Dissinger, Esq. 3 Nevada Bar No. 15208 Karen Kao, Esq. 4 Nevada Bar No. 14386 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 6 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.5937 Telephone: 702.862.8800 7 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 [email protected] 8 [email protected] [email protected] 9 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 10 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Crystal J. Pugh, Esq. 11 Nevada Bar No. 12396 Betty J. Foley, Esq. 12 Nevada Bar No. 6333 5100 West Sahara Avenue 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 Telephone: (702) 799-5373 14 Facsimile: (702) 799-7243 [email protected] 15 [email protected] 16 Attorneys for Defendants CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARILYN 17 DELMONT, AND DAVID ROSARIO

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

20 RICK ALLEN, an individual; Case No. 2:24-cv-00741-GMN-MDC

21 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 22 v. EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 23 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a (Third Request) Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; 24 MARILYN DELMONT, an Individual; DAVID ROSARIO, an Individual, 25 Defendants. 26 27 COME NOW, Plaintiff, RICK ALLEN (“Plaintiff”), by and through his counsel, Trevor J. 28 Hatfield, Esq., of Hatfield & Associates, Ltd., and Defendants, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL 1 DISTRICT, MARILYN DELMONT and DAVID ROSARIO (“Defendants”), by and through their 2 counsel of record, Littler Mendelson, P.C., and the Clark County School District Office of the 3 General Counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) and LR 26-1 do hereby stipulate and 4 request that all deadlines set forth in the Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines 5 (Second Request) (ECF No. 30) be extended by ninety (90) days. 6 This request is submitted pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, and LR 26-3 for the reasons 7 provided below. This is the Parties’ third request for an extension of discovery and dispositive 8 motion deadlines. The instant Stipulation is submitted for the purpose of allowing sufficient time 9 to complete discovery, is not submitted for the purpose of undue delay, and, because it is submitted 10 within twenty-one (21) days of the current initial expert disclosure deadline, is supported by the 11 good cause shown herein. The Parties agree neither Plaintiff nor Defendants will be prejudiced by 12 the requested extension. 13 STIPULATION

14 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED 15 The Parties have made their initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). 16 Defendants served written discovery in the form of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of 17 Documents, which Plaintiff responded to October 23, 2024 and November 15, 2024, respectively. 18 Plaintiff has also served First and Second Supplemental Disclosures. 19 II. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 20 Plaintiff intends to take depositions of Defendants’ Persons Most Knowledgeable and 21 individual Defendants. Plaintiff intends to propound written discovery to Defendants. Plaintiff 22 intends to disclose expert witnesses. Plaintiff is compiling additional documents to supplement. 23 Defendants may propound additional written discovery to Plaintiff. Defendants may wish 24 to disclose expert witnesses. Defendants will depose Plaintiff. Defendants intend to serve 25 subpoenas duces tecum on relevant third parties. 26 The Parties may each wish to disclose rebuttal experts. 27

28 1 III. WHY DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SET BY THE DISCOVERY ORDER AND REASONS FOR EXTENSION 2 While counsel have continued to work together to complete discovery the Parties agree that 3 good cause exists to grant the additional time requested herein. 4 Ongoing dispositive motion practice has shaped the scope and timing of the Parties’ 5 discovery efforts, including when and how to efficiently conduct discovery. In that regard, on 6 January 15, 2025 the Court granted Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. ECF No. 24. In its Order, 7 the Court instructed that Plaintiff “may file a Second Amended Complaint within 21 days if he 8 wishes to allege a federal retaliation claim instead.” See ECF No. 24. The Parties stipulated to an 9 extension of time for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint and for Defendants to file their 10 response. ECF No. 26. The Court granted the Parties’ stipulation, providing until February 14, 11 2025 for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint and until March 7, 2025 for Defendants to file a 12 response. Id. 13 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27) includes one-hundred ninety-eight 14 (198) paragraphs and sets forth seven causes of action. Defendants have filed another partial motion 15 to dismiss Plaintiff’s sixth and seventh causes of action (ECF No. 29), which remains pending and 16 has not yet been adjudicated.1 The Court’s decision on the pending partial motion to dismiss will 17 impact the necessary scope of remaining fact and expert discovery. The Parties agree that the 18 discovery period and related deadlines should be extended to ensure sufficient time to conduct all 19 necessary discovery once the Court adjudicates the pending partial motion to dismiss. Even if the 20 Court grants the pending partial motion to dismiss, this case remains complex and will still involve 21 multiple causes of action. The Parties anticipate the Court’s forthcoming ruling upon the pending 22 partial motion to dismiss will provide finality with respect to the remaining scope of the action and 23 necessary discovery. 24 The Parties agree good cause exists to extend discovery and related deadlines as requested 25 herein in order to preserve the Parties’ rights and to permit sufficient time to complete discovery of 26 all Plaintiff’s claims and causes of action, and Defendants’ defenses. The requested extension will 27

1 Plaintiff filed his Opposition on March 21, 2025 (ECF No. 31) and Defendants filed their Reply 28 1 permit the Parties to fully and fairly adjudicate the matter once pending motion practice is 2 completed. See e.g. Coffee v. Wyndham Resort Development Corp., 2:20-cv-1352-APG-DJA, 2021

(D. Nev. Jan. 15, 2021) (discussing good cause where parties postpone discovery to 4 save resources, fees and costs); Pac. Indem. Co. v. Nidec Motor Corp.,

, 1098 5 (D. Nev. 2016) (finding excusable neglect warranted extension of expert disclosure deadline where 6 request was made after deadline passed but Court found delay was result of party’s effort to save 7 resources); Cervantes v. Scott, No. 2:17-cv-00562-MMD-DJA,

(D. Nev. Apr. 8 9, 2020) (granting stipulation to extend deadlines where pending motion practice would shape 9 scope of further handling); T1 Payments LLC v. New U Life Corporation, No. 2:19-cv-01816-APG- 10 DJA,

, *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 14, 2021) (noting “lenient good cause standard” and 11 granting discovery extension in light of amended counterclaims). 12 The Parties agree that neither Plaintiff nor Defendants will be prejudiced by the instant 13 Stipulation.2

14 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING DISCOVERY 15 1. Discovery Cut-Off: The current discovery cut-off is Wednesday, June 4, 2025. The 16 new discovery cut-off shall be Tuesday, September 2, 2025. 17 2. Expert Disclosures: The current initial expert disclosure deadline is Monday, April 18 7, 2025. The new initial expert disclosure deadline shall be Monday, July 7, 2025, sixty (60) days 19 prior to the new discovery cut-off of September 2, 2025 in accordance with LR 26-1(b)(3).3 20 Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made no later than Wednesday, August 6, 2025, which is thirty 21 (30) days after the initial disclosure of experts in accordance with LR 26-1(b)(3). The Parties shall 22 have until the discovery cut-off date to take the deposition of experts. Expert discovery will be 23

2 Defendants’ counsel primarily responsible for day-to-day handling of this case, Karen Kao, Esq. 24 (“Ms. Kao”), has provided notice to Littler Mendelson, P.C. she will be leaving the firm effective April 11, 2025. Defense counsel Michael Dissinger, Esq. (“Mr. Dissinger”) made his appearance 25 in this case on March 28, 2025 (ECF No. 33) and will be replacing Ms. Kao. Mr. Dissinger has discussed the matter with Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Hatfield has also agreed the 26 instant extension is appropriate in light of the appearance of Mr. Dissinger.

27 3 Ninety (90) days from April 7, 2025 is Sunday, July 6, 2025. Sixty (60) days prior to the September 2, 2025 discovery cut-off is Friday, July 4, 2025, a federal holiday. Therefore, the 28 1 conducted in accordance with applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this 2 District Court, specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and 26(b)(4), and Local Rule 26-1(b)(3). 3 3. Dispositive Motions: Dispositive motions shall be filed by Thursday, October 2, 4 2025, which is thirty (30) days after the discovery cut-off date of September 2, 2025 in accordance 5 with LR 26-3. 6 4. Joint Pretrial Order: The Pretrial Order shall be filed no later than Monday, 7 November 3, 2025, thirty (30) days after the deadline for filing dispositive motions on Thursday, 8 October 2, 2025 in accordance with LR 26-1(b)(5).4 In the event dispositive motions have been 9 filed, the Pretrial Order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after a decision on the dispositive 10 motions or further order of the Court. 11 5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures: The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 26(a)(3) and any objections thereto shall be included in the final Pretrial Order. 13 6. Extensions or Modifications of Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order: In 14 accordance with LR 26-4, any motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in this discovery 15 plan and scheduling order shall be received by the Court no later than twenty-one (21) days before 16 the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within twenty-one (21) days of the subject 17 deadline will be supported by a showing of good cause. 18 / / / 19 20 / / / 21 22 / / / 23 24 / / 25 26 / / / 27

4 Thirty (30) days from October 2, 2025 is Saturday, November 1, 2025. Therefore, the deadline 28 1 Any stipulation or motion will comply fully with LR 26-4. 2 Dated: March 28, 2025 Dated: March 28, 2025 3 HATFIELD AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. LITTLER MENDELSON. P.C. 4 5 /s/ Trevor J. Hatfield /s/ Michael D. Dissinger 6 Trevor J. Hatfield, Esq. Patrick H. Hicks, Esq. Michael D. Dissinger, Esq. 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Karen Kao, Esq. RICK ALLEN 8 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 9 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Crystal J. Pugh, Esq. 10 Betty J. Foley, Esq.

11 Attorney for Defendants CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 12 MARILYN DELMONT, AND DAVID ROSARIO 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: ______ _4_-_1_-2__5___________________ 16 __________________________________________ 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28