1 || BRIAN P. CLARK Nevada Bar No. 4236 2 || LUKAS B. MCCOURT Nevada Bar No. 11839 3 || CLARK MCCOURT 7371 Prairie Falcon Road, Suite 120 4 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Telephone: (702) 474-0065 5 || Facsimile: (702) 474-0068 [email protected] 6 || Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 LOUIS LONG, individually; Case No.: 2:24-cv01711-MDC 10 Plaintiff, 11 V. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 12 SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC BA TEND DISCOVERY DEAD □ ‘ 2 , ONLY AS TO THE DEPOSITIONS OF 13 || Foreign Corporation; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, DAWN BIRKLA AND DEFENDANT 14 || inclusive, SMITH’S FRCP 30(b)(6) WITNESS(ES) 15 Defendants. [SECOND REQUEST] 16 17 Plaintiff LOUIS LONG (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’), by and through his counsel of record, 18 || Brian P. Clark and Lukas B. McCourt of the law firm of Clark McCourt, and Defendant SMITH’S 19 || FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC. (hereinafter, “Defendant”)(the parties hereafter will be 20 || collectively referred to as “Parties”), by and through its counsel of record, Jerry S. Busby and Poo): 21 || Kumar of the law firm of Cooper Levinson, hereby submit this Stipulation and Order to Extend 22 || Discovery Deadlines [Second Request] Only As To The Depositions of Dawn Birkla and Defendar 23 || Smith’s FRCP 30(b)(6) Witness(es). 24 Local Rule 26-3 states that stipulations to extend discovery must be supported by good 25 || cause for the extension. To establish good cause, the Court looks to the diligence of the party that 26 || seeks the extension. (See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. V. Air Vent, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-1579, 2021 27 || U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95692, at *1 (D. Nev. May 19, 2021) (citing Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 28 || F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000)). Good cause is present if the deadline at issue “cannot Page 1 of 5

1 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” (Johnson v. Mammoth

2 Recreations, Inc.

(9th Cir. 1992). As such, the instant Stipulation follows.

3 Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order To Extend Discovery Deadlines [First Request], the

4 discovery cut-off in this case is May 12, 2025. (ECF No. 19, January 10, 2025). The parties have

5 conducted or will have finished conducting written discovery in this case by the discovery cut-off

6 date. Plaintiff has noticed depositions of Dawn Birkla, an employee of Defendant Smith’s, and

7 Defendant Smith’s FRCP 30(b)(6) Witness(es) for May 8, 2025 and May 9, 2025, respectively.

8 However, the parties are unable to conduct the two (2) noticed depositions due to the counsels’ trial

9 schedules and calendar conflicts. As a result, the parties request additional time for discovery only

10 to conduct the two (2) noticed depositions to accommodate the counsels’ trial schedules and

11 calendaring conflicts.

12 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties, through

13 their respective counsel of record, that discovery deadlines only as to the two (2) noticed

14 depositions identified herein be extended thirty-two days (32) days to June 13, 2025, as set forth

15 below, to allow the Parties to complete the depositions.

16 I. STATEMENT SPECIFYING DISCOVERY THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED

17 To date, the Parties have completed the following discovery:

18  The Parties participated in the FRCP 26(f) conference.

19  The Parties served their FRCP 26(a)(1) initial disclosures and supplements thereto.

20  Both Parties have propounded written discovery requests.

21  Both Parties have responded to written discovery requests.

22  The Parties have been collecting Plaintiff’s relevant medical records.

23  Defendant has requested additional medical authorizations from Plaintiff to obtain

24 additional medical records.

25  The Parties are presently meeting and conferring in good faith regarding served

26 discovery responses.

27  Defendant has conducted the deposition of Plaintiff.

28 1  Plaintiff has noticed the depositions of two (2) witnesses – Dawn Birkla, a percipient

2 employee witness, and Defendant’s FRCP 30(b)(6) Wittness(es).

3  The Parties are presently meeting and conferring in good faith regarding reasonable

4 discovery remaining to be completed and a reasonable timeline for the completion of same.

5 II. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE

6 COMPLETED

7  Plaintiff intends to conduct the depositions of Dawn Birkla, a percipient employee

8 witness, and Defendant’s FRCP 30(b)(6) Witness(es)

9 III. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY REMAINING WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN

10 DEADLINES CONTAINED IN DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER

11 Since the commencement of discovery, the Parties have been working amicably together to

12 gather relevant documents, issue necessary discovery, engage in expert discovery, and depose

13 necessary parties and witnesses. Although the Parties had scheduled the depositions of Ms. Birkla

14 and Defendant’s FRCP 30(b)(6) Witness(es), the Parties have been unable to conduct the deposition

15 dates of the witnesses due to the counsels’ trial schedules and calendar conflicts. The Parties

16 believe that the two (2) depositions will be concluded within the time requested in this Stipulation.

17 This extension is sought in good faith and is not meant to unnecessarily delay proceedings in this

18 matter.

19 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DISCOVERY

20 As a result of the above, it is requested that the discovery deadlines in this case be continued

21 from their present deadlines, as follows:

22 1. Discovery Cut-Off Date as to the two (2) depositions identified herein: The

23 Parties jointly propose that the discovery cut-off date for the two (2) depositions identified herein be

24 extended thirty-two (32) days from its present deadline of May 12, 2025, to June 13, 2025. The

25 Parties acknowledge that the discovery cut-off date for all other discovery will remain May 12,

26 2025.

27 2. Amending the Pleading and Adding Parties: The Parties acknowledge that the

28 1 deadline to amend the pleadings and add additional parties has passed. As such, the Parties do not

2 seek to extend this deadline.

3 3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosure of Experts: The Parties acknowledge that the

4 deadline to disclose experts has passed. As such, the Parties do not seek to extend this deadline.

5 4. Dispositive Motions: The Parties jointly propose that the date for filing dispositive

6 motions be extended twenty-three (23) days from its present June 10, 2025, to July 3, 2025.

7 5. Pre-Trial Order: The Parties jointly propose that the date for filing the joint pre-

8 trial order, which is currently set for July 11, 2025, be extended for twenty-four (24) days to August

9 4, 2025. In the event that dispositive motions are filed, the Parties jointly propose that the date for

10 filing the joint pre-trial order be extended until thirty (30) days after decision on dispositive motions

11 or until further Order of this Court.

12 6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosure: The disclosure required by FRCP 26(a)(3), and

13 any objections thereto, shall be included in the joint pre-trial order.

14 7. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Counsel for the Parties certify that they met and

15 conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute resolution, including mediation,

16 arbitration, and/or early neutral evaluation. The Parties have not scheduled any such resolution

17 forum at this point, but they have begun discussions and agree to reconsider following additional or

18 completion of discovery.

19 8. Alternative Forms of Case Disposition: The Parties certify that they discussed

20 consenting to a trial by a magistrate judge or engaging in the Short Trial Program under FRCP 73

21 and, at present, do not consent to either alternative form of case disposition.

22 9. Electronic Evidence: The Parties certify that they have discussed and intend to use

23 electronic evidence at the trial of this matter and will ensure that said evidence is in electronic

24 format compatible with the Court’s electronic jury evidence display system. At present, the Parties

25 have not agreed upon any stipulations regarding the use of electronic evidence but will address this

26 issue again in the joint pre-trial order.

27 / / /

28 1 10. Extensions or Modifications of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order: As 2 |! the Parties submit the instant Stipulation within twenty-one (21) days of the subject deadline, the 3 || Parties believe that the instant Stipulation is supported by a showing of good cause in compliance 4 || with LR 26-3. 3 IT IS SO STIPULATED. © | DATED this 12" day of May, 2025. DATED this 12" day of May, 2025 7 CLARK MCCOURT COOPER LEVINSON 8 9 /s/ Lukas B. McCourt /s/ Pooja Kumar, Esq. 10 Brian P. Clark Jerry S. Busby, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4236 Nevada Bar No. 1107 11 Lukas B. McCourt Pooja Kumar, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11839 Nevada Bar No. 12988 12 7371 Prairie Falcon Road, Suite 120 3016 West Charleston Boulevard #195 Las Vegas, NV 89128 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc. 14 15 16 ORDER 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED: 18 19 . 20 Ze Hon. We imiliano FY CouyilWér II 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 DATE: 5/13/2025 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 5 of 5