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.

Estate of Cary v. United States

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 12, 2018

THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN THOMAS CARY, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC PAUL PADDA, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

          DAYLE ELIESON UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

          LINDSY M. ROBERTS ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ATTORNEYS FOR THE UNITED STATES

          JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

         Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1, 26-4, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), the parties stipulate, subject to this Court's approval, that the deadlines in the approved discovery schedule be extended as set forth below. The parties assert that good cause exists for the requested extension.

         1.Status Report. Discovery is currently set to close on March 15, 2018. This request is made more than 21 days prior to that cutoff date solely for the purpose of extending the deadline to conduct depositions while the parties are actively engaged in settlement negotiations. The parties assert that good cause exists to extend the deadline as set forth in Paragraph 4. Additionally, should this stipulation be approved by the Court, it will facilitate and increase the possibility of resolution without the parties having to balance upcoming deadlines. While the parties had previously represented that they did not anticipate needing an additional extension, Plaintiff's counsel was notified at the end of December 2017 that an office relocation he was intending to make had to be postponed which will now affect his ability to devote the time necessary to this and other case commitments. By filing this stipulation jointly, the parties are in agreement that this extension is warranted under the circumstances.

         2. Status/Discovery Completed. The parties have completed the following discovery:

• Initial and supplemental disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(C).
• Exchanged written discovery.
• Exchanged expert witness disclosures.
• Taken depositions of fact witnesses.

         3. Discovery remaining. The only outstanding discovery is depositions of expert witnesses (one in California and one in Virginia) and some of Plaintiff's treating physicians and health care providers, all of whom are/were employed by Defendant. This additional discovery that remains will require out-of-town travel and additional coordination of schedules.

         4. Reasons for extension. The parties request this extension to provide them with the time to facilitate potential resolution of the matter. The parties are actively engaged in settlement negotiations and both parties are hopeful that a resolution can be reached in the near future. The parties continue to negotiate in good faith and request this extension to avoid costly expert depositions and the travel costs associated therewith.

         Of course, if the parties are not able to reach a resolution, they will need sufficient time to complete discovery. Given the travel involved and the coordination of schedules (including those of experts who have medical practices) additional time is needed to provide enough time to complete discovery while the parties continue the dialogue regarding settlement. In addition to the foregoing, counsel for Plaintiff had anticipated making an office relocation (after being located approximately 6 years in his current location) in early January 2018. However, in late December 2017, after the parties filed the last extension request, he was notified by the management of the building to which he is relocating that the office move would need to be postponed until mid-February 2018. The anticipated move to new offices has required him to make a number of arrangements that are disruptive to his law practice and which will continue to be disruptive now that the relocation date has been postponed. Upon relocation, Plaintiff's counsel will need time to adjust to the new office (including implementing computer support and related matters) while balancing numerous case commitments in state and federal court.

         For all of these reasons, the parties are in agreement that an additional 90-day extension of the discovery ...


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.