United States District Court, D. Nevada
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES
above named parties, by and through their respective counsel
of record, hereby submit the following STIPULATION FOR
EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES (First Request).
DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE
matter involves an alleged fall at one of defendant's
stores. On November 27, 2017, the parties held an initial
Rule 26(f) Conference. Plaintiff served his initial
disclosure of witnesses and documents on December 7, 2017.
Defendant served its initial disclosure of witnesses and
documents on December 11, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the
Court entered a Stipulated Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order.
has served five supplements to his initial disclosure of
witnesses and documents. Defendant propounded a First Set of
Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents upon plaintiff on January 18, 2018. Plaintiff
served his responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents on March 14, 2018 pursuant to an
extension granted by defendant. On March 6, 2018, plaintiff
propounded a First Set of Interrogatories, a First and Second
Set of Requests for Production of Documents, and a First Set
for Request for Admissions upon defendant. Plaintiff has
granted defendant an extension to respond to those written
March 6, 2018, plaintiff noticed the depositions of five of
defendant's current employees and two of defendant's
former employees for April 17 and 18, 2018. Plaintiff also
noticed the deposition of defendant's 30(b)(6)
representative for April 19, 2018. The parties conducted four
of those depositions on April 17 and 18. The depositions of
one of defendant's current employees and defendant's
30(b)(6) representative have tentatively been rescheduled for
May 1, 2018. The parties are working to reschedule the other
two depositions of defendant's current employees.
has requested plaintiff's medical records and films
directly from her medical providers through records
authorizations provided by plaintiff. Defendant has also
requested plaintiff's employment and tax records through
records authorizations provided by plaintiff.
March 20, 2018, plaintiff served his Initial Expert
Disclosure, including a life care plan regarding his need for
future care. On March 30, 2018, the parties conducted an
inspection of the location of the reported fall.
DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED
is still obtaining plaintiff's medical and employment
records through authorizations provided by plaintiff.
Defendant needs to conduct the deposition of plaintiff and
his treating healthcare providers once defendant has received
plaintiff's medical records directly from the providers.
Based upon plaintiff's reported need for future medical
treatment, the parties have agreed that plaintiff will appear
for a Rule 35 Examination. Defendant needs to respond to
plaintiff's written discovery requests.
needs to conduct the depositions of three of defendant's
current employees and defendant's 30(b)(6)
representative. Plaintiff anticipates designating additional
expert witnesses. Defendant anticipates designating expert
witnesses. The parties anticipate conducting the depositions
of any designated expert witnesses.
REASONS WHY DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED
is still in the process of obtaining plaintiff's medical
records and films. Defendant needs to obtain those records
before conducting the depositions of plaintiff and his
treating healthcare providers. Defendant also needs to obtain
those records and films to provide to defendant's medical
expert. Plaintiff recently produced a life-care plan
indicating that he is still experiencing symptoms and
anticipates receiving future treatment. Based upon that
life-care plan, the parties have reached an agreement for
Plaintiff to attend a Rule 35 Examination. Defendant's
medical expert cannot conduct that examination, complete a
records review, and prepare an expert report prior to the
current expert witness disclosure deadline.
parties did not request this extension more than 21 days
before the current discovery deadline as the parties were
negotiating the terms and conditions for the Rule 35
Examination to try to avoid a motion to compel a Rule 35
Examination. The parties eventually reached an agreement
regarding that examination but were not able to reach that
agreement to allow for a timely examination. The parties were
not aware that a ...