United States District Court, D. Nevada
LAW FIRM, PLLC RAMZY P. LADAH, ESQ. (SBN 11405) ATTORNEY FOR
PLAINTIFF, SYLVIA LEYS.
OFFICES OF CHARLES ABBOTT CHARLES ABBOTT (SBN 13811) ATTORNEY
FOR DEFENDANTS, KEVIN PRENTICE AND WAL-MART STORES, INC.
JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER FILED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-4 (FIRST REQUEST)
Local Rule 26-4, the parties, through their respective
counsel, request the Court extend the discovery cutoff for
ninety (90) days. This is the first request for an extension
of discovery deadlines.
Report: The parties conducted a Rule 26(f)
conference on August 28, 2017 and filed a stipulated
discovery plan and scheduling order (ECF No. 7) on August 30,
2017, setting the discovery deadline for February 13, 2018.
This action involves an accident at a retail store operated
by Defendant Wal-Mart Store, Inc. (“Walmart”).
The accident resulted in severe and debilitating injuries to
Plaintiff who has over $900, 000 in medical damages to date.
Under LR 26-4, the deadline to request an extension of
discovery deadlines is January 23, 2018. While the parties
have been working diligently to complete the remaining
discovery within the deadlines, the parties request a ninety
(90) day extension of the discovery deadlines for the
Walmart served its initial disclosures on September 1, 2017.
Plaintiff served her responses on October 4, 2017.
Plaintiff's initial disclosures contained documents.
Plaintiff served her First Set of Interrogatories, Requests
for Production and Requests for Admission on September 18,
2017. Walmart served its responses to all written discovery
on October 25, 2017. Besides its written responses, Walmart
also produced documents responsive to Plaintiff's
Walmart served its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests
for Production on September 6, 2017. Plaintiff served her
responses on October 18, 2017. On November 14, 2017, Walmart
identified deficient responses in both the interrogatories
and document requests. The parties are working in good faith
to resolve Walmart's concerns without judicial
Resolution of the Plaintiff's responses to Walmart's
document requests is critical for Walmart's medical
expert before Plaintiff's physical examination under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 35. Walmart believes that Plaintiff was involved
in workplace and automobile accidents, months before the
incident at the Walmart store, which caused injuries to body
parts she alleges Walmart negligently caused. The parties are
working in good faith to resolve Walmart's concerns about
Plaintiff's document production.
Plaintiff deposed three percipient witnesses on November 14
and 15, 2017. Plaintiff may depose other witnesses, including
Walmart's representative under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6).
Walmart plans to depose Plaintiff and her percipient
witnesses once Walmart is satisfied that Plaintiff has
completed her discovery obligations. Both sides plan to
conduct expert depositions. Given the amount of medical
providers and lien holders in this $1 million claim, Walmart
expects many depositions.
December 3, 2017, Walmart requested Plaintiff's counsel
to stipulate to a mental examination under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35.
Walmart selected Dr. Louis Etcoff, a forensic psychiatrist,
to perform the evaluation, but his next appointment is in
February 2018. Walmart believes that a report drafted by
Plaintiff's psychiatrist, who Plaintiff identified as a
non-retained expert, provides ample support for a mental
examination. Plaintiff agreed to respond to Walmart's
request for a mental examination by December 18, 2017.
November 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand.
Walmart's response is due by December 11, 2107.
Deadlines: Therefore, the parties propose a 90-day
extension with these discovery deadlines:
Discovery cut off:
May 14, 2018
Filing Motions to Amend
Initial Expert Disclosure
March 15, 2018
Rebuttal Expert Disclosure
April 16, 2018
June 13, 2018
6. Pretrial Order:
A pretrial order shall be filed by July 12, 2018.
But, if any dispositive motions are filed, the
Joint Pretrial Order shall be due thirty days after
decision of such motion(s). Disclosures under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) and any objections shall be
included in the Joint Pretrial Order.
Discovery: The parties have located no significant
relevant information, stored in an electronic format. The
parties agree to produce any electronically stored
information in paper and/or pdf format. If the parties learn
that electronically stored information is available and would
affect this case, the ...