Miller v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.

1 | KRISTOPHER M. HELMICK, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 13348 | KIRILL V. MIKHAYLOV, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 13538 || PACIFIC WEST INJURY LAW 8180 Rafael Rivera Way #200 || Las Vegas, NV 89113 Phone: (702) 602-4878 || Fax: (702) 665-5627 [email protected] | [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA || SHEILA MILLER, individually, CASE NO.: = 2:24-cv-02410 1] Plaintiff, = STIPULATION AND PROPOSED $ 12 || vs. ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES || LOVE’S TRAVEL STOPS & COUNTRY (FIRST REQUEST) STORES, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation; m 14 | GRANT THORNTON, LLP, a Foreign = Limited-Liability Partnership; and DOES I-X; || and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES XI-XX, inclusive.

Defendants 18 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between the parties and their attorneys o || record, that pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b) the current discovery deadlines be extended by thirt || (30) days.

21 I.

22 DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 23 1. The parties have conducted the FRCP 26.1 Early Case Conference.

24 2. Plaintiff has produced her Lists of Witnesses and Documents, and supplements theret || pursuant to FRCP 26(a).

26 3. Defendant has produced its Lists of Witnesses and Documents, and supplement || thereto pursuant to FRCP 26(a).

28 4. Defendant propounded First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff.

Page | of 4 1 5. Defendant propounded First Set of Requests for Production to Plaintiff.

2 6. Defendant propounded First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff.

3 7. Plaintiff served Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories.

4 8. Plaintiff served Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Production.

5 9. Plaintiff served Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Request for Admissions.

6 10. _—— Plaintiff propounded First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant.

7 11. Plaintiff propounded First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant. g 12. Plaintiff propounded First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant.

9 13. | Defendant served Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories.

10 14. Defendant served Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production.

11 15. Defendant served Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Request for Admissions.

12 16. The parties conducted Plaintiff's deposition.

Il.

13 DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED = 1. Deposition of Defendant Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. 30(b)(6 15 Pp Pp ry witness(es).

16 (es) 2. Deposition(s) of Plaintiff's treating physicians.

7 Pp g phy 18 3. Deposition of other percipient witnesses.

19 4. Initial expert disclosures.

20 5. Rebuttal expert disclosures. >] 6. Depositions of experts.

7. Additional written discovery (if necessary).

74 8. Any remaining discovery the parties deem relevant and necessary as discover continues.

HI.

25 REASONS THE PARTIES REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINES 26 . .

LR 26-3 governs modifications or extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Ordet Any stipulation or motion to extend or modify that Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must b Page 2 of 4 |} made no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline and mus || comply fully with LR 26-3. If the stipulation is made less than twenty-one (21) days before th || expiration of a deadline, the parties must show a good cause exist. A request made after the expiratio: || of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to ac || was the result of excusable neglect.

6 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised || showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns o1 || whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson 1 || Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

10 The parties respectfully submit, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, that good cause exists for th || following requested extension. Plaintiff's counsel had a personal emergency that occurred on Ma || 9, 2025, and Plaintiffs counsel has been back and forth visiting the hospital every day since ther ~ 13 || This Request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose other purpose of delay = 14 || Based on the foregoing, both Plaintiff and Defense counsel are requesting that the discovery deadline ™ 15 || be extended by thirty (30) days.

16 Extension or Modification of The Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

17 LR 26-3 governs modifications or extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Ordet || Any stipulation or motion to extend or modify that Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must b || made no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline and mus || comply fully with LR 26-3. If the stipulation is made less than twenty-one (21) days before th || expiration of a deadline, the parties must show a good cause exist.

Discovery Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline || Motion to Amend/Add Parties April 22, 2025 23 Initial Expert Disclosures May 22, 2025 June 23, 2025 All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures June 20, 2025 July 21, 2025 24 Discovery Cut-Off Date July 21, 2025 August 20, 2025 0s August 20, 2025 September 19, 2025 The parties represent this Stipulation is sought in good faith and not interposed for delay o any other improper purpose.

Page 3 of 4 DATED this 22nd day of May, 2025. DATED this 22nd day of May, 2025.

2 || PACIFIC WEST INJURY LAW RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. __/s/ Kirill V_Mikhaylov /s/ Carissa Yuhas || KRISTOPHER M. HELMICK, ESQ. CARISSA YUHAS, ESO.

Nevada Bar No. 13348 || KIRILL V. MIKHAYLOV, ESQ. We The. 4 Suite 330 Nevada Bar No. 13538 est Aussell Koad, ourte || BOHDEN G. COLE, ESQ. Las Vegas, NV 89148 Nevada Bar No. 15719 Attorneys for Defendants || 8180 Rafael Rivera Way #200 Las Vegas, NV 89113 || Attorneys for Plaintiff 1 ORDER 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. . ~ 13 , Li, mw la ce fas UNIF£D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. - = ” DATED: May 23, 2025 Page 4 of 4