1 Darren T. Brenner Nevada Bar No. 8386 2 KLINEDINST PC 5940 South Rainbow Blvd. 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 (702)859-4000 4 [email protected] 5 Attorneys for Defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 ROBERT HAMBLEN, an individual, and Case No. 2:23-cv-01098-GMN-EYJ LESLIE R. BAKKE, an individual, 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 13 EXTEND THE CLOSE OF DISCOVERY, v. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE, 14 AND JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF DEADLINE 15 THE MIDWEST, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, EIGHTH REQUEST 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff Leslie R. Bakke, 20 through her counsel of record, the law firm of Sidran Law Corp and Defendant Hartford Insurance 21 Company of the Midwest, through its counsel of record, the law firm of KLINEDINST PC, that the 22 discovery deadlines in this matter shall be extended ninety (90) days pursuant to LR 26-3. This is the 23 Parties’ eighth request for an extension of the discovery deadlines. The Parties set forth the following 24 information in support of their stipulation. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / / / / 1 I. 2 DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 3 A.FRCP 26(a) Disclosures and Supplements 4 Title Date Served Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses Pursuant to September 28, 2023 5 FRCP 26(a)(1) 6 Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Initial Disclosure of September 14, 2023 Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP RULE 26.1(a)(1) 7 Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s First Supplemental January 30, 2024 Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP RULE 8 26.1(a)(1) Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Second Supplemental May 23, 2024 9 Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP RULE 10 26.1(a)(1) Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Third Supplemental September 11, 2024 11 Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP RULE 26.1(a)(1) 12 Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Fourth Supplemental November 15, 2024 13 Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP RULE 26.1(a)(1) 14 Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Fifth Supplemental November 7, 2024 Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP RULE 15 26.1(a)(1) Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Initial Disclosure of November 8, 2024 16 Expert Witnesses 17 Plaintiff Leslie Bakke’s Initial Disclosure of Expert Witnesses November 8, 2024 Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Rebuttal Expert December 18, 2024 18 Witnesses and Reports Plaintiff Leslie Bakke’s Rebuttal Disclosure of Expert Witnesses December 20, 2024 19 Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Sixth Supplemental January 29, 2025 20 Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26.1(a)(1) 21 Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses February 21, 2025 Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1) 22 Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosure of Documents and March 3, 2025 23 Documents Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1) Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Seventh Supplemental 24 Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents Pursuant to FRCP RULE August 14, 2025 26.1(a)(1) 25 26 / / / 27 / / / / / / 1 B. Written Discovery Title Date Served 2 Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s First Set of October 6, 2023 3 Interrogatories to Plaintiff Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s First Set of Requests for October 6, 2023 4 Admissions to Plaintiff Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s First Set of Requests for October 6, 2023 5 Production of Documents to Plaintiff Plaintiff’s Responses to Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s December 22, 2023 6 First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff 7 Plaintiff’s Responses to Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s December 22, 2023 First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff 8 Plaintiff’s Responses to Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s December 22, 2023 First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff 9 Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to August 26, 2024 10 Defendant Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant August 26, 2024 11 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant August 26, 2024 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for October 15, 2024 12 Production of Documents to Defendant 13 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for October 15, 2024 Admissions to Defendant 14 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to October 15, 2024 Defendant 15 Defendant’s Second Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff November 20, 2024 Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff November 20, 2024 16 Defendant’s Third Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff December 5, 2024 17 Defendant’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff December 5, 2024 Bakke’s Responses to Defendant’s Second Set of Requests for January 10, 2025 18 Admissions Bakke’s Responses to Defendant’s Third Set of Interrogatories January 10, 2025 19 Bakke’s Responses to Defendant’s Third Set of Requests for Production January 10, 2025 20 of Documents 21 C.Depositions 22 Deponent Date 23 Plaintiff Leslie Bakke January 31, 2024 Robert Hamblen January 27, 2025 24 Hartford employee Michelle Burruel January 30, 2025 Hartford employee Will Shade January 31, 2025 25 Dr. Oliveri September 29, 2025 26 Hartford employee Veronica Garcia November 4, 2025 27 Hartford employee Nicole Richardson November 4, 2025 1 Claims handler Jim Wilson (Part 1) November 7, 2025 2 Claims handler Jim Wilson (Part 2) To be determined 3 Innovative Pain Care Center - Michael Scott, P.A.-C (to be rescheduled 4 November 17, 2025 per doctor’s scheduling conflict) 5 Stanford University Pain Management Center - Kristen Klepac To be determined MacKenzie, M.D. 6 7 D.Subpoenas Issued and Records collected 8 Subpoena Date 9 Stanford Healthcare January 4, 2024 10 Deposition Subpoena to Innovative Pain Care Center - Michael Scott, October 9, 2025 P.A.-C 11 Deposition subpoena to Stanford University Pain Management Center October 9, 2025 -Kristen Klepac MacKenzie, M.D. 12 13 E.Expert Disclosure 14 Initial Expert Disclosure Date 15 Both Sides Served Initial Expert Disclosures November 8, 2024 Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Rebuttal Expert December 18, 2024 16 Witnesses and Reports Plaintiff Leslie Bakke’s Rebuttal Disclosure of Expert Witnesses December 20, 2024 17 18 II. 19 DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED 20 1. Completion of the deposition of Hartford claim handler Jim Wilson (started but not 21 finished). 22 2. Plaintiff will take the deposition of Defendant’s medical expert, Dr. Fish. 23 3. Plaintiff will take the deposition of Defendant’s claim handling expert, Mr. Titus 24 4. Defendant took the deposition of Plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Oliveri September 25 29, 2025. 26 5. Defendant will take the deposition of Plaintiff’s claim handling expert, Mr. Zalma. 27 6. Plaintiff will take part two of the deposition of Jim Wilson. 1 7. Defendant will take the deposition of Plaintiff’s treating provider, Michael Scott, 2 P.A.-C. 3 8. Defendant will take the deposition of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Kristen Klepac 4 MacKenzie, M.D, or another appropriate provider from Stanford. 9. The parties will engage in additional written discovery and notice any 5 additional depositions. 6 The parties anticipate that they may need to conduct other forms of discovery not 7 specifically delineated herein on an as-needed basis. Therefore, the list outlined above is in not 8 intended to be a comprehensive list of the outstanding discovery that remains to be completed. 9 III. 10 REASONS DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS NEEDS 11 TO BE EXTENDED 12 “[D]istrict courts . . . retain broad discretion to control their dockets . . . .” Shahrokhi v. Harter, 13 No. 2:21-cv-01126-RFB-NJK,

, at *4 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2021). To 14 prevail on a request to extend discovery deadlines, the parties must establish good cause. Johnson v. 15 Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause to extend a 16 discovery deadline exists if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 17 extension.” Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02342-APG-VCF, 18

, at *6 (D. Nev. Sep. 10, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). For the 19 reasons set forth below, the parties respectfully submit that good cause supports their request for an 20 extension of the close of discovery, dispositive motions deadline and joint pretrial order deadline. 21 This is an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiff has a personal automobile policy with 22 Hartford. When a dispute arose, Plaintiff filed claims for breach of contract and breach of the 23 covenant of good faith and fair dealing (aka bad faith). Hartford disputes Plaintiff's allegations. 24 Plaintiff's case involves multiple incidents and multiple claims. Plaintiff was insured under an 25 automobile policy issued by Hartford. Plaintiff had incidents in 2017 and 2018. Plaintiff claims the 26 injuries in the 2018 incident are casually connected to the 2017 incident. Hartford opened up claims 27 under the Medical Payments (Medpay) portion of the subject Policy for both incidents, and paid certain benefits. Plaintiff also pursued a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits related to the 1 2017 accident. The policy includes up to $50,000 in Medpay benefits, $500,000 in underlying UM 2 benefits, and a $1,000,000 UM umbrella. Plaintiff's policy also includes a $5,000,000 liability 3 umbrella. At one point in time, there was some question whether the $5,000,000 liability umbrella 4 limit should be extended to the UM umbrella. 5 Given the complexity of the issues and amounts at issue, the parties agreed at the inception of 6 the case it would be productive to gather available outstanding records, consult with experts, and 7 attempt to resolve the case. Plaintiff disclosed her providers early in the case, and provided releases 8 for Hartford to obtain records. The parties also conducted discovery and worked through the issue of 9 whether coverage under the liability umbrella should be the same for the UM umbrella. It took 10 considerable time to gather available records. Plaintiff has disclosed approximately four dozen 11 medical providers that rendered treatment over the years. Plaintiff's medical history is also 12 complicated by prior surgeries, including a two level lumber fusion in 1999, and four level cervical 13 laminectomy in 2009. In particular, the parties experienced considerable difficulty obtaining records 14 from Plaintiff's treatment at Sandford University in California. It took several months of requests— 15 and multiple discovery extensions—to obtain those records. Ultimately, Hartford was required to 16 issue and pursue a subpoena. Once the records were gathered, the parties consulted experts, and 17 ultimately participated in a mediation. Several discovery extensions were requested, and granted, to 18 further the parties efforts to gather Plaintiff's medical records, consult with experts (which required 19 obtaining the records first), and go to mediation. 20 Unfortunately, the parties were unable to resolve their dispute through the mediation. The 21 parties have since been working cooperatively together to complete discovery. There were some 22 additional delays because Hartford's counsel moved firms, which necessitated the last extension. In 23 total, Plaintiff has taken the deposition of five Hartford claim handlers involved with the two Medpay 24 and UM claims. On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff started the deposition of Jim Wilson, a supervisor 25 involved with Plaintiff's UM claim. The deposition went longer than expected. The parties agreed to 26 continue the completion of the deposition for another day. 27 Hartford has also been attempting to take the depositions of some of Plaintiff's providers. 1 deposition of one of the treaters at Stanford (Dr. MacKenzie) and Plaintiff's prior primary care 2 physician (Dr. Welborn). Dr. MacKenzie's counsel objected to the subpoena, incorrectly believing it 3 needed to be domesticated in California. Dr. MacKenize also had availability concerns. There were 4 also issues the compensation, if any, Dr. MacKenize is entitled to receive for the deposition, and who 5 was required to pay those expenses. While Hartford and Dr. MacKenize's counsel have generally 6 worked those issues through, Stanford has recently suggested a different doctor, other than Dr. 7 MacKenzie, is more appropriate for the deposition based on the triaged treatment Plaintiff received 8 at Stanford. Hartford is open to the suggestion, but still analyzing the issue and consulting with Dr. 9 MacKenzie's counsel. 10 Additionally, the efforts to depose Dr. Welborn did not come to fruition. Hartford recently 11 learned that Dr. Welborn passed away. Hartford is now, instead, attempting to take the deposition of 12 Dr. Welborn's physician's assistant, Michael Scott, PA-C. Mr. Scott's deposition was noticed for 13 Mid-November. Prior to the deposition, Mr. Scott's office advised he was out of town and/or on 14 vacation the date the deposition was set. Mr. Scott has also requested $1500/hour in compensation 15 for his deposition, which Hartford believes is well in excess of the reasonable and customary amount 16 for a physician's assistant to the extent any fee is justified. Hartford is attempting to informally 17 resolve these issues with Mr. Scott and his office. 18 The parties also need to complete depositions of the experts. Hartford has taken the deposition 19 of Plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Oliveri. Hartford still needs to take the deposition of Plaintiff's claim 20 handling experts. Plaintiff wishes to take the depositions of Hartford's medical expert, Dr. Fish, and 21 Hartford's claim handling expert, Mr. Titus. 22 Currently, discovery closes on December 29, 2025. The parties agree that it is impractical to 23 complete discovery by the current deadline. Particularly given the holidays. Additionally, both 24 plaintiff's counsel and defense counsel have recently lost associates who were assigned, or to be 25 assigned, to the files. This has added some additional complication while Plaintiff and Defendant's 26 lead counsel have taken over full case handling responsibility. The parties recognize the Court has 27 previously extended discovery several times, and indicated further requests for extension will be 1 extensions, the parties respectfully submit that each has been supported by good cause. This is a 2 complicated case with many moving parts. To date, the parties have cooperatively scheduled all 3 discovery, and worked all discovery issues informally. The parties respectfully submit that this 4 requested extension is mutually desirable, and reasonable under the specific circumstances of this 5 case. 6 IV. 7 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 8 Current Date Proposed Date 9 10 Amend Pleadings and Add Parties: Closed 11 Initial Expert Disclosures: Closed and Completed 12 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Closed and Completed 13 Close of Discovery: December 29, 2025 March 27, 2026 14 Dispositive Motions January 28, 2026 April 28, 2026 15 Joint Pretrial Order February 27, 2026 May 28, 2026 16 DATED this 21st day of November, 2025. DATED this 21st day of November, 2025. 17 18 /s/ David R. Sidran /s/ Darren T. Brenner DAVID R. SIDRAN, ESQ. DARREN BRENNER, ESQ. 19 Nevada Bar No. 7517 Nevada Bar No. 8386 20 SIDRAN LAW CORP KLINEDINST PC 7251 West Lake Mead Boulevard, #300 8337 West Sunset Rd., #220 21 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Attorney for Plaintiff, Attorney for Defendant 22 LESLIE R. BAKKE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST 23 ORDER 24 IT IS SO ORDERED; provided, however, that under only the most extraordinary, 25 unforeseeable circumstances will any further extensions of discovery be granted. 26 27 ________________________________ UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE