Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flores v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 13, 2017

ROBERT FLORES, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., a foreign corporation d/b/a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market #3355; JONATHAN SOROLA, an individual; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS 11 through 20, inclusive; and ABC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES 21 through 30, inclusive, Defendants.

          BRIAN D. NETTLES, ESQ., CHRISTIAN M. MORRIS, EDWARD J. WYNDER, ESQ. NETTLES LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff

          TIMOTHY D. KUHLS, ESQ.Attorneys for Defendant

          STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST)

         Plaintiff, Robert Flores (“Plaintiff”), by and through his counsels of record, Brian D. Nettles, Esq. Christian M. Morris, Esq., and Edward J. Wynder, Esq., of Nettles Law Firm, and Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. d/b/a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market #3355 (“Defendant”), by and through its counsel of record, Timothy D. Kuhls, Esq., Esq., of Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, LLC, hereby stipulate to the extension of all remaining discovery deadlines by sixty (60) days pursuant to LR 26-4.

         STIPULATED APPLICATION

         WHEREAS, the parties have begun discovery but still have substantial discovery to complete before they will be ready for trial, the parties request a sixty (60) day extension of certain discovery deadlines as set forth below.

         A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE

         1. The parties participated in the Fed. R. Civ. P 26(f) conference on August 15, 2017.

         2. Plaintiff made his pre-discovery disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26.1(a)(1) on August 28, 2017. Defendant served its pre-discovery disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.1(a)(1) on September 15, 2017.

         3. Defendant propounded written discovery to Plaintiff on September 18, 2017 and Plaintiff responded to Requests for Admissions on October 11, 2017 and Requests for Production of Documents on October 16, 2017 and Interrogatories on October 16, 2017.

         4. Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant on November 1, 2017.

         B. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED

         Plaintiff has been unable to designate a medical expert or produce a report due to scheduling conflicts of the expert. Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's written discovery is due December 1, 2017. The parties have conducted one deposition of Defendant's girlfriend, the deposition of one of Defendant's employees is currently scheduled. The parties intend to depose several individuals including Plaintiff, Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) designee(s), treating medical professionals, expert witnesses and other employees of Defendant.

         C. REASONS FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY

         Despite the good faith efforts of the parties to comply with the Court's discovery deadlines, various scheduling conflicts have occurred. As set forth above, Plaintiff has experienced a delay in producing a medical expert report due to the scheduling conflicts of the medical expert. Accordingly, the parties believe a sixty (60) day extension to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.