1 LYSSA S. ANDERSON Nevada Bar No. 5781 2 KRISTOPHER J. KALKOWSKI Nevada Bar No. 14892 3 KAEMPFER CROWELL 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 5 Fax: (702) 796-7181 [email protected] 6 [email protected] 7 Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 GREG SMITH, individually, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00525-APG-DJA 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 13 CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, a political (First Request) subdivision of the State of Nevada; LAS 14 VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the 15 State of Nevada; MICHAEL GELNN, individually; ANTHONY POWELL, 16 individually; WILLIAM KEARNES, individually; ROBERT STEPHENSON, 17 individually; JUAN ESPINOZA, individually; OSCAR MARTINEZ, individually; RONALD 18 QUINTANA, individually; ANGEL VALLADARES, individually; NICHELLE 19 KELLY, individually; GARDDY LUSTIN, individually; BLAIR LUDWIG, individually; 20 DOE OFFICERS I - XX, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I-V, 21 Defendants. 22 23 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties that the discovery 24 cut-off date of December 3, 2025, be continued for a period of ninety (90) days up to and 1 including Tuesday, March 3, 2026, for the purpose of allowing the Plaintiff to serve the newly 2 added Defendants with the Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 20]; to allow the newly 3 added Defendants to appear and respond in the case; to allow the parties to propound and 4 respond to written discovery; to allow experts time to review materials and prepare their expert

5 reports; to serve third-party subpoenas; and to take the depositions of Plaintiff, the individual 6 Defendants, experts and Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses. 7 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 8 All parties have provided their Initial Rule 26 Disclosures. Plaintiff has provided two (2) 9 supplemental disclosures. Defendant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) 10 served Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff to which Plaintiff responded. 11 Defendant, City of North Las Vegas (“CNLV”) served written discovery (Interrogatories, 12 Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents) on Plaintiff and the 13 responses are due September 21, 2025. 14 II. DISCOVERY YET TO BE COMPLETED

15 LVMPD will be serving a supplemental disclosure on Plaintiff and after receiving a 16 signed medical authorization from Plaintiff will be serving numerous third-party subpoenas to 17 obtain Plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff will respond to CNLV’s written discovery. Plaintiff 18 will be serving written discovery on Defendants and likewise, LVMPD will be serving 19 Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff. The parties will retain and disclose 20 expert witnesses and any necessary rebuttal expert witnesses. The depositions of Plaintiff, the 21 individual Defendants, Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and experts will be taken. 22 III. REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED 23 The Parties submit this Stipulation to Extend Discovery (first request) is being made in

24 advance of the current discovery deadlines. Accordingly, a standard of “good cause” governs. D. 1 Nev. Local Rule 26-3. Good cause “primarily considers the diligence” of the parties seeking the 2 extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (explaining 3 that “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite 4 the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”) (internal quotations omitted). “Motions for

5 extension must include a statement specifying the discovery completed, a description of 6 discovery remaining, the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied, and a proposed schedule for 7 completing remaining discovery.” Hampton v. Nevada, No. 2:20-cv-00578-APG-DJA,

3573640, at *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2021). 9 Following removal this case, LVMPD filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s 10 initial complaint, [ECF No. 6], then Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 15]. The 11 operative Scheduling Order was entered on April 9, 2025, [ECF No. 13]. Following the parties’ 12 initial Rule 26 Disclosures, Plaintiff sought leave to amend his Complaint again to name the 13 individual DOE Officers, [ECF No. 19], which was granted, [ECF No. 23]. Plaintiff’s Second 14 Amended Complaint, which adds eleven (11) individuals, was filed that same day, [ECF No. 20].

15 On September 3, 2025, the Court denied the pending Motion to Dismiss as moot. [ECF No. 24]. 16 Plaintiff has not yet served the newly added individual Defendants and LVMPD and CNLV have 17 not yet filed a response to the Second Amended Complaint. 18 The Complaint was recently amended and added new parties that have not yet been 19 served. The parties will require additional time to effectuate service, make an appearance and 20 respond to the Second Amended Complaint. In addition, the scope of discovery has now 21 changed, and the parties will also need more time to complete discovery. The parties submit that 22 these reasons satisfy the applicable good cause standard imposed by Local Rule 26-3 for an 23 extension of the current discovery deadlines.

24 / / / 1 IV. PROPOSED EXTENDED DEADLINES 2 The parties respectfully request this Court enter an order as follows: 3 Deadline Current Date Proposed New Date 4 Discovery Cut Off December 3, 2025 March 3, 2026

5 Disclosure of Experts October 3, 2025 January 2, 2026 6 Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts November 3, 2025 February 2, 2026 7 Dispositive Motion Deadline: January 4, 2026 April 2, 2026 8 Pre-Trial Order February 3, 2026 May 4, 2026 9 10 (A) Motions in Limine/Daubert Motions. 11 Under LR 16-3(b), any motions in limine, including Daubert motions, shall be filed and 12 served 30 days prior to the commencement of Trial. Oppositions shall be filed and served 14 13 days thereafter. Reply briefs will be allowed only with leave of the Court. 14 (B) Pretrial Order.

15 Pursuant to LR 26(1)(e)(5), the Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed with this Court no later 16 than thirty days after the date set for filing dispositive motions, unless dispositive motions are 17 filed, in which case the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be suspended until 30 days 18 after the decision on the dispositive motions or further order of this Court. The disclosures 19 required by FRCP 26(a)(3) and any objections shall be included in the final pretrial order. 20 (C) Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 21 In accordance with LR 26-3, applications to extend any date set by the discovery plan, 22 scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be 23 supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend a

24 deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received by the Court not later than 21 days before 1 the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline 2 shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to set was the result of 3 excusable neglect. Any motion or stipulation to extend a deadline or to reopen discovery shall 4 include:

5 (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; 6 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 7 (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was 8 not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and 9 (d) A proposed scheduled for completing all discovery. 10 / / / 11 / / / 12 / / / 13 / / / 14 / / /

15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / /

24 / / / 1 The parties submit that good cause exists for an extension of the discovery deadlines. 2 || Discovery just recently commenced in this matter. The parties have acted in good faith and will 3 continue to conduct discovery in a timely manner. Because of the nature of the case and its 4 ||claims, it has taken considerable time and resources to gather and assemble materials and 5 ||information relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter. This brief delay will not impede 6 ||this matter and, in fact, will assist all parties to complete all necessary discovery. No Trial has 7 || been set, and dispositive motions have not been filed. 8 || DATED this 11th day of September, 2025. DATED this 11th day of September, 2025. 9 /s/ Joshua L. Benson /s/ Lyssa S. Anderson JOSHUA L. BENSON LYSSA S. ANDERSON 10 || Nevada Bar No. 10514 Nevada Bar No. 5781 BENSON ALLRED KRISTOPHER J. KALKOWSKI 11 || 333 N. Rancho Drive, Suite 420 Nevada Bar No. 14892 Las Vegas, NV 89106 KAEMPFER CROWELL 12 || Attorneys for Plaintiff 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 13 Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 14 || DATED this 11th day of September, 2025. /s/ Danielle Holt 16 NOEL EIDSMORE Nevada Bar No. 7688 7 DANIELLE HOLT Nevada Bar No. 13152 18 Office of the City Attorney for CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS 19 2250 Las Vegas Blvd. North, Suite 810 North Las Vegas, NV 89030 0 Attorneys for Defendant City of North Las Vegas

IT IS SO ORDERED. IP aX 22 - | 33 DANIELJ.ALBREGTS = UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 DATED: 9/12/2025 CROWELL Festival Plaza Drive Suite 650.