1 || WILLIAM H. PRUITT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6783 2 || JOSEPH R. MESERVY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14088 3 || BARRON & PRUITT, LLP 3890 West Ann Road 4 || North Las Vegas, Nevada 89031 Telephone: (702) 870-3940 5 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 MARISA AUSTIN, individually Case No: 2:25-cv-00080 Plaintiff, 11 vs. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 12 EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 3 MARLA MICHELLE TEAGARDEN, individually; (First Request) BLACKFOOT SERVICES LLC, a foreign limited 14 || liability company; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 oe S 17 Defendants MARLA MICHELLE TEAGARDEN and BLACKFOOT SERVICES LLC, an 18 || Plaintiff MARISA AUSTIN, through their respective counsel, submit this stipulation and order to 19 || extend discovery deadlines pursuant to LR 26-4 as follows: 20 1. Summary of Discovery Completed 21 To date, the following discovery has been completed in this case: Date Completed Defendants’ Initial Rule 26(a) Disclosures 05/08/2025 23 Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Admission, 05/09/2025 2A Requests for Production and Interrogatories to Plaintiff 25 Plaintiff's Initial Rule 26(a) Disclosures 05/13/2025 26 2. Discovery Remaining 27 The following discovery remains to be completed: 28

1 a) Written Discovery to be propounded by Plaintiff; 2 b) Deposition of Plaintiff; c) Deposition of Defendant Teagarden; 3 d) Deposition of Rule 30(b)(6) Designee for Defendant Blackfoot Services LLP; 4 e) Deposition(s) of percipient witnesses (e.g., Jenni Haraldson; Tyler Haraldson; and Joe 5 Teagarden); 6 f) Deposition(s) of investigating officers (e.g., Officer Moises Ibarra) 7 g) Deposition(s) of Plaintiff’s treating physicians; 8 h) Disclosure of expert witnesses; and 9 i) Deposition(s) of expert witnesses 10 Reason Why Discovery Was Not Completed 11 Discovery in this matter is currently scheduled to close on July 23, 2025. Although discovery 12 has progressed, additional time is required to complete the remaining discovery for multiple reasons. 13 First, Plaintiff’s former attorney disassociated with his firm and once the case was reassigned, 14 insufficient time remained to identify and hire potential experts with sufficient availability to 15 provide opinions. Additionally, Plaintiff has yet to provide HIPAA authorizations to allow the 16 defense to collection of her medical records, which records are anticipated to be central to the 17 defenses raised in this matter and will take time to collect; however, Plaintiff has recently disclosed 18 significant medical records. Furthermore, the paralegal assigned to this case for Defendants moved 19 away and during reassignment of this case (among many others), the deadlines in this matter were 20 inadvertently overlooked. And, Defendants’ lead counsel recently experienced a significant illness 21 that kept him out of the office for many days. The additional 120 days proposed herein will allow 22 the parties’ respective counsel the time necessary to coordinate the remaining discovery. As such, 23 the parties believe that good cause exists to warrant extending the discovery cut off deadline and 24 hereby request a 120-day extension of the remaining discovery deadlines to allow for additional time 25 to complete the remaining discovery. 26 As this stipulation is being submitted within 21 days of the current initial expert deadline date, 27 1 || factors in determining whether neglect is excusable: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing part 7 (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the dela 3 and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Erection Co. v. Archer W. Contractors, LLC ,N 4 2:12-cv-0612-MMD-NIK,

, at *7 (D. Nev. Nov. 6, 2013) (citi 5 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.,

(1993)). The determination « 6 whether neglect is excusable is ultimately an equitable one, taking account of all releva

7 circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. Pioneer,

.

8 The factors are all met here. First, there is no prejudice to any party; all parties consent to tl

9 extension. Second, the length of delay is reasonable considering the extent of discovery to |

10 completed and the fact that trial has yet to be scheduled, and the parties agree this 120-day extensic is necessary given the extraordinary circumstances. This extension will allow the parties to obta " necessary documentation and complete necessary depositions prior to disclosing expert witnesses | = ‘2 detailed above. The third factor, reason for delay, also weighs in favor of granting the request. TI shuffling of cases from counsel and paralegals resulted in a need for additional time to ensure ke . . . . ou: Is document production to expert witnesses to assist the trier of fact. Moreover, Plaintiff has yet | provide certain HIPAA releases and the defense requires time to obtain records using these document 10 Finally, the fourth factor, good faith, is present here. As discussed above, the parties have diligent 2 and amicably completed discovery upon learning of calendar oversights and met and conferred | 18 good faith prior to requesting this extension of deadlines on May 9, 2025. 19 3. Proposed Schedule for Completing Discovery 20 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter an order setting the 21 following discovery plan and scheduling order dates: New Dealing he Expert Designations May 26. 2025 25 □□□ October 21, 2025 November 20,2025

1 ||| Joint Pre-Trial Order September 22, 2025 | January 21, 2026 2 Counsel further state that the requested extension of discovery deadlines 1s not interposed f 3 || purposes of delay, but rather for the purposes set forth above. 4 DATED: May 15, 2025 DATED: May 15, 2025 5 ‘ THE 702 FIRM INJURY ATTORNEYS BARRON & PRUITT, LLP

7 || By: __/s/ Matthew Pawlowski By: _/s/ William H. Pruitt MICHAEL C. KANE, ESQ. WILLIAM H. PRUITT, ESQ. 8 Nevada Bar No. 10096 Nevada Bar No. 6783 9 MATTHEW P. PAWLOWSKLI, ESQ. 3890 West Ann Road Nevada Bar No. 9889 North Las Vegas, Nevada 89031 10 8335 W. Flamingo Road Attorney for Defendants Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 2. 13 424 IT ISSO ORDERED. Aff we 14 L PX Jb fx 5 i ff \ 4 Hon. Maxygxiliano D. Cpyivillief I 16 United States Magistrate Judg DATED: 5/20/2025 2 17 If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be 18 suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court 19 order. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and any objections to them must be included in the joint pretrial order. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28