1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LISA A. RASMUSSEN, Nevada Bar No. 7491 2 ||LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 MCLETCHIE LAW 3 | |602 South Tenth St. 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 728-5300; Fax: (702) 425-8220 5 | |Email: [email protected] ‘ Counsel for Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 g | | NEBYOU SOLOMON, an individual, Case No.: 2:22-cv-00847-JCM-DJA

vs. 1] LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE | SUPULATION AND ORDER TO 12 DEPARTMENT, a municipal corporation; EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND . 13|| SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO, an SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES individual; TOM JENKINS, an individual; 2242 BENJAMEN COBB, an _ individual; | (NINTH REQUEST Ages 13 MICHAEL GRACA, an __ individual; WILLIAM VAN CLEEF, an individual; 2 16|| DOE OFFICERS V-X, individuals a? Defendants. = 17 Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon (“Plaintiff”), by and through his counsel of record, 18 Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., Lisa A. Rasmussen, Esq., and Leo S. Wolpert, Esq., of 19 McLetchie Law, and Defendants, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (the 20 “Department” or “LVMPD”), Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Officer Tom Jenkins, Officer 21 Benjamen Cobb, Officer Michael Graca, and Officer William Van Cleef, collectively 22 (“LVMPD Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, Nick D. Crosby, Esq. of 23 Marquis Aurbach, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling 24 Order deadlines as set forth below. 25 26 27 28 MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

1 I. STATUS OF DISCOVERY 2 A. PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY 3 1. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Initial Disclosures and Production □□ 4 | |Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26 dated August 19, 2022. 5 2. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Interrogatories to Defendant LVMPD - Set 6 | |One dated November 1, 2022. 7 3. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production of Documents to 8 | |Defendant LVMPD - Set One dated November 1, 2022. 9 4. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s First Supplemental Disclosures and Production 10 | }of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 dated January 3, 2023. 11 5. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant LVMPD 12 | |- Set Two dated May 16, 2023. 13 6. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Interrogatories to LVMPD — Set Two dated 14 | |March 15, 2024. 15 7. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant LVMPD’s First Set of Interrogatories 16 | |dated October 1, 2024. 17 8. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant LVMPD’s First Set of Requests for 18 | |Production of Documents dated October 1, 2024. 19 9. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant LVMPD 20 | |— Set Three dated February 14, 2025. 21 10. — Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant 22 | |Benjamen Cobb — Set One - dated March 21, 2025. 23 11. — Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant Michael 24 | |Graca — Set One - dated March 21, 2025. 25 12. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant Tom 26 | |Jenkins — Set One dated March 21, 2025. 27 13. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant William 28 | | Van Fleet — Set One dated March 21, 2025. MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

] 14. ‘Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant LVMPD 2 | |— Set Four dated March 21, 2025. 3 15. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Interrogatories to Defendant Las Vegas 4 | |Metropolitan Police Department — Set Three dated March 21, 2025. 5 16. Deposition of Defendant LVMPD SWAT Officer Benjamen Cobb taken 6 | |June 16, 2025. 7 17. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Second Supplement to Initial Disclosures and 8 | |Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 dated June 18, 2025. 9 18. Deposition of Defendant LVMPD Officer William Van Cleef taken June 10 | |20, 2025. 11 19. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant Las 12 | | Vegas Metropolitan Police Department — Set Five dated June 27, 2025. 13 20. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Third Supplement to Initial Disclosures and 14 | |Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 dated July 11, 2025.1 15 21. — Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Fourth Supplement to Initial Disclosures and 16 | |Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 dated July 14, 2025. 17 22. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant LYMPD 18 | |— Set Six dated July 24, 2025. 19 23. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Interrogatories to Defendant Las Vegas 20 | |Metropolitan Police Department — Set Four dated July 24, 2025. 21 24. Deposition of Defendant LVMPD SWAT Officer Tom Jenkins taken 22 | |August 8, 2025. 23 25. Deposition of Defendant LVMPD Officer Michael Graca taken 24 | |September 8, 2025. 25 26. Deposition of Defendant LVMPD Officer Kevin Kolkoski taken 26 | |September 11, 2025. 27 | | ' Of relevance to the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff produced materials from the related 28 | |cases discussed below (see Section IID), MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

1 27. □ Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for Production to Defendant Las 2 | | Vegas Metropolitan Police Department — Set Seven dated September 12, 2025. 3 28. Deposition of LVMPD Officer Melanie O’Daniel, taken September 29, 4 | |2025. 5 29. Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Interrogatories to Defendant Tom Jenkins 6 | |— Set One dated October 13, 2025. 7 30. Deposition Notice and Subpoena for October 21, 2025, deposition of 8 | |LVMPD Officer Sgt. Seth Meyer. 9 31. Deposition Notice and Subpoena for October 30, 2025, deposition of 10 | |LVMPD Officer John Leon. 11 32. Deposition Notice for Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) — previously set for 12 | |August 19, 2025. Consolidated deposition to be reset to November 5 and 6, 2025, as 13 | |discussed below. 14 B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY ge: 15 1. LVMPD Defendants’ Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents 16 Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated August 19, 2022. 17 2. Defendant LVYMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s 18 | |Interrogatories - Set One dated December 5, 2022. 19 3. Defendant LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests 20 | |for Production of Documents - Set One dated December 5, 2022. 21 4. LVMPD Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 22 | |Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated December 5, 2022. 23 5. LVMPD Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 24 | |Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated July 17, 2023. 25 6. Defendant LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests 26 | |for Production of Documents - Set Two dated July 17, 2023. 27 7. Defendant LVYMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s 28 | |Interrogatories - Set Two dated April 17, 2024. MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

1 8. LVMPD Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Nebyou 2 | |Solomon dated July 1, 2024. 3 9. LVMPD Defendants’ First Set of Request for Production of Documents to 4 | |Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon dated July 1, 2024. 5 10. LYVMPD Defendants’ Third Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 6 | |Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated May 5, 2025. 7 11. Defendant Benjamen Cobb’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests 8 | |for Production of Documents dated May 5, 2025. 9 12. Defendant Michael Graca’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests 10 | |for Production of Documents dated May 5, 2025. 11 13. Defendant Tom Jenkins’s Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for 12 | |Production of Documents dated May 5, 2025. 13 14. Defendant William Van Cleef’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of 28 14 | |Requests for Production of Documents dated May 5, 2025. ge: 15 15. Defendant LVMPD’s Answers to Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Third Set of a 16 | |Interrogatories dated May 5, 2025. 17 16. Defendant LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiffs Fourth Set of Requests for 18 | Production of Documents dated May 5, 2025. 19 17. Defendant LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiffs Third Set of Requests for 20 | Production of Documents dated May 5, 2025. 21 18. | LVMPD Defendants’ Fourth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 22 | |Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated June 19, 2025. 23 19. LVMPD Defendants’ Fifth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 24 | |Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated June 20, 2025. 25 20. Defendant LVMPD’s Responses to Plaintiff's Fifth Set of Requests for 26 | Production of Documents dated July 28, 2025. 27 21. Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Responses to 28 | | Plaintiff’s Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents dated August 25, 2025. MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

] 22. LVMPD Defendants’ Sixth Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 2 | |Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) dated October 16, 2025. 3 23. Additionally, LVMPD’s outstanding responses to Plaintiffs’ written 4 | |discovery are due as follows: 5 a) Defendant LVMPD’s response to Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Requests for 6 Production to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department — Set 7 Seven dated September 12, 2025. 8 b) Defendant Tom Jenkins Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s Interrogatories to 9 Defendant Tom Jenkins — Set One dated October 13, 2025. 10 24. Additionally, LVMPD has Noticed Plaintiff Nebyou Solomon’s 11 | |Deposition for October 29, 2025. 12 II. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 13 The Parties are actively conducting discovery. The Parties are working on resolving 14 | |written discovery issues and planning the remaining depositions. However, for the reasons 15 | jexplained below (Section III), the Parties will need additional time to complete written : 16 | |discovery, respond to written discovery and conduct additional depositions. © 17|| I. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHY EXTENSION IS NECESSARY 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the 19 | Jextension requested. This is the ninth request for an extension of discovery deadlines in this 20 | |matter. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation to extend a 21 | |deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be submitted to the Court no later than 21 days 22 | |before the expiration of the subject deadline, and that a request made within 21 days must be 23 | |supported by a showing of good cause. All of the deadlines the Parties are requesting to be 24 | |extended expire inside of the 21-day window, and good cause exists for extending the current 25 | |deadlines (see ECF No. 83) as set forth below. The current discovery cutoff date is October 26 | |16, 2025. 27 28 MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

1 The Parties have been diligently conducting discovery and continue to conduct 2 | |discovery, but recent developments support the requested extension and promote judicial 3 | |economy. 4 Specifically, for cost-saving and efficiency purposes, the parties in this matter and 5 | |two related matters have agreed that the dispositive motion deadline in this case should be 6 | |clustered with the dispositive motion deadlines in two cases involving overlapping policy 7 | |issues. These two cases are Downes-Covington, et al. v. LVMPD, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv- 8 | |01790-CDS-DJA (the “Downes-Covington” case) and Rogers et al. v. LVMPD, et al., Case 9 | |No. 2:22-ev-00867-CDS-DJA (the “Rogers” case). 10 While Downes-Covington, Rogers, and this case differ factually in some respects 11 | |relevant to each plaintiff, the cases each stem from the widespread protests following George 12 | |Floyd’s death in 2020 and the police response to those protests. Many of the overarching 13 | |policy, practice, and custom issues in these three cases are similar, and as such the Monell 2 2 14 | | arguments in each case will likely substantially overlap. 15 Clustering the dispositive motion deadline here with those in Downes-Covington : 16 | |and Rogers and consolidating the Fed. Rev. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions in this case and the |Rogers case will simplify the issues and streamline the judicial process for the Parties by 18 | |permitting the Parties to draft dispositive motions in each case simultaneously. It will also 19 | |reduce the burden on and promote judicial efficiency in the courts.” 20 Additionally, because of the overlap of policy, practice, and customs issues, the 21 | |parties have also agreed to consolidate the deposition of LVMPD’s Fed. Rev. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 22 | |designee(s) in this case and the Rogers Case which will result in greater efficiency, ease of 23 | |witness scheduling, and lower costs in effectuating the 30(b)(6) depositions in all three of 24 | | _ ? On July 31, 2025, the Court in Downes-Covington approved the new dispositive motions 25 | |deadline of Friday, October 17, 2025 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01790-CDS-DJA, ECF No. 208), 6 and which the Parties noted at that time may need to be further extended to coordinate with this case and the Rogers Case (id. p. 3:12-15 (¥ 10)). On October 14, 2025, the Parties 27 | |submitted a proposed stipulation and order which seeks to extend the dispositive motions deadline in Downes-Covington to Monday, December 22, 2025 which is pending before the 28 | |Court (Case No. 2:20-ev-01790-CDS-DJA, ECF No. 209). MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

1 | |the cases. As a result, extra time is needed due to fact that LVMPD’s planned Fed. Rev. Civ. ||P. 30(b)(6) designee for this case and the Rogers case? recently left LVMPD and, thus, |counsel for the Defendants had to identify and prepare a new designee. The combined |deposition of LVMPD’s designee in this case and in the Rogers case is currently set for 5 | [November 5 and 6, 2025. 6 Further, at the June 16, 2025, deposition of defendant Benjamen Cobb herein, 7 | |Plaintiff learned that LVMPD SWAT supervisor Melanie O’ Daniel carried out a presentation 8 | |to LVMPD SWAT addressing some of the force used by LVMPD SWAT in general and 9 | |Officer Cobb in particular during the BLM protests, which were taking place during the time 10 | |of the incidents set forth in Plaintiffs complaint herein. During Officer Cobb’s deposition, 11 | |Plaintiff believes issues arose concerning preservation of evidence. Thereafter, Plaintiff 12 | Jissued requests for production and interrogatories relating to evidence preservation and 13 | |Melanie O’Daniel’s SWAT presentation, and also noticed LVMPD of the depositions of 2 2 14 | |O’Daniel and another former SWAT supervisor, John Leon. Melanie O’Daniel was deposed : 15 | |on September 29, 2025, and her deposition confirmed the relevance of testimony from John : 16 | |Leon. Plaintiff encountered difficulty serving Leon and scheduling his deposition, as he is Ino longer employed by LVMPD, and lives out of state in Texas. Plaintiff has managed to 18 | |locate Leon, and has noticed his deposition for October 30, 2025. 19 On August 8, 2025, Plaintiff deposed Defendant Tom Jenkins. Due to health 20 | |reasons, his deposition had to be taken remotely, and technical problems prevented the |review of video footage during the deposition wherein Jenkins was to identify portions of 22 | |the footage that relate to Plaintiff's claims. Moreover, Jenkins’ testimony raised questions 23 | |about LVMPD policy concerning preparation of Declaration of Arrest reports that are 24 | |relevant to Plaintiffs claims. As a result, Plaintiff issued requests for production to LVMPD 25 | |on September 12, 2025, to address the arrest report issues raised by Jenkins, and the Parties 26 27 28 | )3 This designee was also the designee in the Downes-Covington Case. MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

1 | Jagreed that the video footage issues could be resolved by way of interrogatories to Jenkins, 2 | |which were served on October 13, 2025. 3 On September 11, 2025, Plaintiffs deposed LVMPD Officer Kevin Kolkoski, who 4 | |both confirmed his role in the arrest of Plaintiff, but also implicated his supervisor, Sgt. Seth 5 | |Meyer, as being involved in and directing the arrest of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has noticed the 6 | |deposition of Meyer for October 21, 2025, to address Officer Meyer’s involvement in the 7 | |case and Plaintiffs claims. 8 Additionally, the Plaintiff is in the process of supplementing his disclosures to 9 | | provide raw video footage of the incident, which was not originally included in the Plaintiff's 10 | |disclosures or responses to discovery. 1] Finally, Defendants need to depose Plaintiff, and the Parties are in the process of 12 | |scheduling his deposition, which has been complicated by the extensive deposition schedule 13 | |in recent months in this case and in Rogers. Currently, Plaintiff's deposition has been 2 2 14 | |noticed for October 29, 2025. : 15 Accordingly, an extension of the current discovery cut-off date is necessary to take : 16 | |these depositions of John Leon, Seth Meyer, and Plaintiff, carry out any additional discovery 17 | |that may be necessitated by these depositions, and evaluate the pending discovery to LVMPD 18 | land Jenkins once it is produced, as well as that of the Plaintiff. 19 The Parties contend that an extension of discovery deadlines enables them to 20 | |continue to conduct necessary discovery so that this matter is fairly resolved. It will also |beneficially harmonize the dispositive motion briefing and LVMPD’s 30(b)(6) witness 22 | |depositions in this case and the two related cases in a way that promotes judicial economy. 23 | |The Parties together request this extension in good faith, for good cause, and to further the 24 | |resolution of this civil rights case on the merits, and not for any purpose of delay. “Good 25 | |cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 26 | {diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0137- 27 | |JJCM-NJK,

,

, at 1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) 28 | |(quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992)); see also MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

1] |Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, 2 | |administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and 3 | |inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As the procedural history of 4 | |this case illustrates, the Parties have been diligent in litigating this matter. 5 For all these reasons, the Parties contend that the standards to extend all deadlines 6 | |are satisfied here. 7 IV. SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING DEADLINES 8 9 For the reasons set forth above, the Parties request that the Discovery Plan and 10 Scheduling Order deadlines be extended as set forth above so that they may complete discovery, work together to resolve discovery disputes if possible, conduct depositions, harmonize briefing across this case, Rogers, and Downes-Covington, save resources via a 13 consolidated Fed. Ev. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition (with the Rogers case) and efficiently a 14 litigate the case based on the merits. 15 Po Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline 16 Amend Pleadings and Add Mareh 242023 Past Due/Unchanged Ss Parties = 17 18 Initial Expert Disclosures Past Due/Unchanged Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Past Due/Unchanged 19 Discovery Cut-Off October 16, 2025 December 1, 20254 20 November 14, 2025 January 8, 20265 21 22 23) \4 Forty-five days from the previous October 16, 2025, deadline is Sunday, November 30, 24 | |2025, a non-judicial day. The next judicial day is Monday, December 1, 2025. > Forty-five days from the previous November 14, 2025, deadline is Tuesday, December 30, 25 | |2025. The Parties are requesting this January 8, 2025, deadline to allow more time after the %6 proposed dispositive motions deadline in Downes-Covington of December 22, 2025, and the intervening Christmas and New Years holidays. This will also fit with the proposed staggered 27 | |dispositive motions briefing for the Rogers case, which 1s anticipated will be extended from its current November 26, 2025, date to the third or fourth week of January, 2026 (see Case 28 | |No. 2:22-cv-00867-CDS-DJA, ECF No. 105 (minutes)). 10 MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)

1 Pretrial Order December 26, 2025 February 9, 2026° (if dispositive motions are filed, 2 the deadline shall be suspended until thirty (30) 3 days after the decision of the dispositive motions or further 4 order of the Court.) 5 Based on the foregoing stipulation and proposed deadlines plan, the Parties request 6 | |that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines be extended by approximately forty- 7 | |five (45) days so that the parties may conduct additional discovery and depositions. 8 The Parties respectfully submit this request in good faith and not for any improper 9 | |purpose or to delay. 10 Dated this 16th day of October, 2025. Dated this 16th day of October, 2025. 12 || MCLETCHIE LAW MARQUIS AURBACH By: /4/Leo S. Wolpert By: 4/ Nick D. Crosby 14 Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Nick D. Crosby, Esq. 2 BLE Nevada Bar No. 10931 Nevada Bar No. 8996 15 Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. 10001 Park Run Drive 3s Nevada Bar No. 12658 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 16 602 South 10th Street Attorney for Defendants 8 17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nebyou 18 Solomon 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED: 22 23 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 DATED: 10/17/2025 25 26 27 | |° Thirty days from the proposed dispositive motions deadline of January 8, 2026, is Saturday February 7, 2026, a non-judicial day. See LR 26-1(b)(5). The next judicial day is Monday, 28 February 9, 2026. 11 MAC: 14687-417 (#6085317.1)