United States District Court, D. Nevada
THOMAS WALKER, an individual, and CATHY CATALDO, an individual Plaintiffs,
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; OFFICER PAUL MAALOUF, individually and in his official capacity as a North Las Vegas Police Department Officer; and OFFICER TRAVIS SNYDER, individually and in his official capacity as a North Las Vegas Police Department Officer, Defendants.
BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH Robert W. Freeman, Jr., Esq.
NBN 3062 Noel E. Eidsmore, Esq. NBN 7688 Attorneys for
MCLETCHIE SHELL LLC Margaret A. McLetchie, NBN 10931 Alina M.
Shell, NBN 11711 and Jennifer L. Braster, NBN 9982 NAYLOR
& BRASTER Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION
DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST)
to Local Rule 26-4, Plaintiffs, THOMAS WALKER and CATHY
CATALDO (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), by and
through their attorneys of record, Margaret A. McLetchie and
Alina M. Shell of McLetchie Shell, LLC and Jennifer L.
Braster of Naylor & Braster, and Defendants, CITY OF
NORTH LAS VEGAS, OFFICER PAUL MAALOUF, and OFFICER TRAVIS
SNYDER (herein after “Defendants”), by and
through their attorneys of record, Robert W. Freeman, Jr.,
Esq. and Noel E. Eidsmore, Esq., of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith, LLP, hereby stipulate and request that this
Court extend the dispositive motion deadline thirty (30)
RULE 26-4 REQUIREMENTS
in this matter has been completed. However, the parties are
hereby requesting that the two remaining deadlines set forth
in the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 114) be extended.
the last day for filing dispositive motions including, but
not limited to motions for summary judgment, shall be
extended from July 17, 2017 to August 16,
parties also hereby request that the last day to file a Joint
Pretrial Order, including any disclosures pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3), shall be extended by thirty (30) days
from August 16, 2017 to September 15, 2017. In the event
dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint
Pretrial Order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days
after decision on the dispositive motions or upon further
Order by the Court extending the time period in which to file
the Joint Pretrial Order.
parties aver, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, that good cause
exists for the requested extension. For example, Plaintiffs
have three discovery motions which are still pending before
this Court. Two of those motions request reconsideration of
an order by the magistrate judge quashing subpoenas to two
non-parties (ECF Nos. 132 and 133), while the other is motion
for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d).
for defendants has been occupied with propounding and
answering discovery in Hollis v. North Las Vegas,
2:16-cv-2663-JAD-GWF, Murry v. North Las Vegas,
2:17-cv-157-APG -CWH, and Spiotto v. LVMPD,
2:17-cv-0153-GMN-GWF. Further counsel for defendants has been
occupied in preparing a Motion for Summary Judgment in
Kiessling v. LVMPD, 2:16-cv-690-GMN-NJK.
the parties believe that dispositive motions may resolve
issues related in the case, such as the same will not be
required to proceed to a jury and will conserve judicial
Rule 26-4 governs modifications or extension of the
scheduling order. Any stipulation or motion must be made no
later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the
subject deadline, and comply fully with LR 26-4.
to LR 26-4, any motion to extend discovery deadlines must be
received by the Court “no later than twenty-one (21)
days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” LR
26-4 further states that a request made after the deadline
“shall not be granted unless the movant demonstrates
that the failure to act was the result of excusable
neglect.” The parties recognize that they are
requesting an extension of the expert disclosure deadline
inside of the twenty-one (21) day period as set forth in LR
26-4. As such, the parties submit that excusable neglect
exists to permit granting the instant requested extension. 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).
extensions request is made in good faith, jointly by the
parties, and not for the purposes of delay. Trial in this
matter has not yet been set. Moreover, since this request is
a joint request, neither party will be prejudiced.
Request for an extension of time is not sought for any
improper purpose or other purpose of delay. Rather, it is
sought by the parties solely for the purpose of allowing
sufficient time to conduct discovery in ...