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.

Redeker v. State

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 18, 2018

ARIE REDEKER, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.

          ARIE REDEKER Plaintiff in Pro Se.

          ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General, TIFFANY E. BREINIG Depiflty Attorney-General Attorneys for Defendants.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST)

         Plaintiff, Arie Redeker, pro se, and Defendants James Cox, Dwight Neven, Chilton Leach, Cynthia Sablica, Jacob Murphy, Robert Bannister, and Romeo Aranas, by and through Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and Tiffany E. Breinig, Deputy Attorney General, hereby submit their Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Deadlines (Second Request) pursuant to LR 26-4 and LR IA 6-1.

         I. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Arie Redeker (Plaintiff) is an inmate currently in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), housed at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1883 (Complaint), alleging First and Eighth Amendment claims, and a State law negligent supervision claim against multiple defendants for events that took place while Plaintiff was housed at HDSP, ECF No. 16.

         On April 6, 2017, this Court granted the parties Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Deadlines (ECF No. 41). ECF No. 42.

         On November 8, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiffs motion requesting the extension of discovery and scheduling order deadlines (ECF No. 55). ECF No. 60.

         On February 20, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 63) and ordered the following discovery deadlines:

Discovery Cut-off

May 21, 2018

Expert disclosures

March 21, 2018

Rebuttal expert disclosures

April 23, 2018

Dispositive motions

June 20, 2018

Joint Pretrial Order

July 20, 2018

ECF No. 65.

         II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

         A. Applicable Law

         The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, which includes establishing discovery and other deadlines. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Local Rule IA 6-1 governs requests for extensions of time, and it requires the following: "[a] motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted." Local Rule 26-4 states in pertinent part:

A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing ot good cause. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that ...

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.