Muric-Dorado v. Kelsey

1 LYSSA S. ANDERSON Nevada Bar No. 5781 TRAVIS STUDDARD Nevada Bar No. 16454 KAEMPFER CROWELL 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Fax: (702) 796-7181 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Richard Newman, Angela Patton, James Portello, Cesar Esparza, Kenneth Kelsey, Rogelio Mariscal, Tutulupeatau Mataele, Raymond Bunch, Kimberly Shrewsberry, Cheryl Whetsel, Gerald Razo, Jesse Reynolds, Bryce Walford, Tanya Vai, Kyle Banagan, Christopher Hunter, Douglas Taylor and Mitchell Green 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA RAMON MURIC-DORADO, CASE NO.: 2:18-cv-01184-JCM-EJY 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND vs. DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE 16 (Fourth Request) LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE [ECF No. 253] DEPARTMENT, et al.

18 Defendants.

19 The parties by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate, agree, and request that this Court extend the dispositive motion deadline from the current date of July 16, 2025, for sixty (60) days, until September 15, 2025, and to set a deadline for responses to all dispositive motions of October 14, 2025. This extension and corresponding response deadline will allow the parties sufficient time to prepare and file numerous dispositive motions, and the responses to them.

24 / / / I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 2 As set forth in the parties’ prior requests to extend this deadline at ECF Nos. 249, 252, and 254, the parties conducted substantial discovery in this matter. Discovery closed on February 14, 2025, and is completed.

5 II. DISCOVERY YET TO BE COMPLETED 6 Discovery is completed. The parties are requesting an extension of the current dispositive motion and corresponding response deadlines only.

8 III. REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED 9 The parties are requesting a sixty (60) day extension of the current dispositive motion deadline. On June 24, 2025, the parties requested a thirty (30) day extension of the current deadline. [ECF No. 254]. That request was timely and in advance of the July 16, 2025, deadline.

12 The Court has not ruled on the pending Stipulation. As such, this Request is being made after the operative deadline. However, the parties submit that because of the filing of the timely Stipulation at ECF No. 254, excusable neglect is shown.

15 LR 26-3 states in relevant part: A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan 17 must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline 18 must be supported by a showing of good cause. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also 19 demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.

20 In evaluating excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). The parties attempted to seek a timely extension of this deadline.

2 There are now eighteen (18) named Defendants in this matter. Recently, on July 3, 2025, this Court dismissed three (3) Defendants following the parties’ agreement. [ECF No. 257]. On June 25, 2025, eight (8) of the named Defendants filed a dispositive motion related to the claims against them. [ECF No. 256]. On July 18, 2025, another dispositive motion was filed by another three (3) Defendants. [ECF No. 258]. There are seven (7) remaining Defendants that will file dispositive motions.

8 Defendants have been diligent in preparing and filing dispositive motions as shown above.

9 However, due to the number of claims and named Defendants in this matter, more time is needed.

10 Likewise, because there will be multiple dispositive motions filed, Plaintiff will need additional time to file the appropriate responses. As such, there is good cause to extend the dispositive motion deadline and corresponding deadline for responses.

13 IV. PROPOSED EXTENDED DEADLINES 14 The Parties respectfully request this Court enter an order as follows: 15 Deadline Current Date Proposed New Date 16 Dispositive Motion Deadline July 16, 2025 September 15, 2025 17 Response to Dispositive Motions 14 days after filing of October 15, 2025 for all Motion Motions filed 18 Pre-Trial Order Deadline September 15, 2025 November 15, 2025 20 A. Motions in Limine/ Motions.

21 Under LR 16-3(b), any motions in limine, including Daubert motions, shall be filed and served 30 days prior to the commencement of Trial. Oppositions shall be filed and served and the motion submitted for decision 14 days thereafter. Reply briefs will be allowed only with leave of the Court.

1 B. Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

2 In accordance with LR 26-3, applications to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received by the Court not later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to set was the result of excusable neglect. Any motion or stipulation to extend a deadline or to reopen discovery shall include: 10 (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; 11 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 12 (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and 14 (d) A proposed scheduled for completing all discovery.

15 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 This request for an extension is made in good faith and joined by all the parties in this case.

2 The Request is not timely; however, excusable neglect is shown. Trial is not yet set in this matter.

3 Accordingly, this extension will not delay this case. Moreover, since this request is a joint request, neither party will be prejudiced. The extension will allow parties the necessary time to file dispositive motions and the respective responses.

6 DATED this 24th day of July, 2025. DATED this 24th day of July, 2025.

7 GOODWIN LAW GROUP KAEMPFER CROWELL /s/ Charles R. Goodwin /s/ Lyssa S. Anderson ___________________________________ ___________________________________ CHARLES R. GOODWIN LYSSA S. ANDERSON Nevada Bar No. 14879 Nevada Bar No. 5781 3100 W Charleston Blvd TRAVIS STUDDARD Las Vegas, NV 89102 Nevada Bar No. 16454 11 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Attorneys for Plaintiff Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Ramon Muric-Dorado Attorneys for Defendants 13 Richard Newman, Angela Patton, James Portello, Cesar Esparza, 14 Kenneth Kelsey, Rogelio Mariscal, Tutulupeatau Mataele, Raymond Bunch, 15 Kimberly Shrewsberry, Cheryl Whetsel, Gerald Razo, Jesse Reynolds, 16 Bryce Walford, Tanya Vai, Kyle Banagan, Christopher Hunter, Douglas Taylor and 17 Mitchell Green IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 25th day of July, 2025.

21 _______________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE