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.

Bassi v. Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 3, 2018

TERESA BASSI, Plaintiff,
v.
SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC.; DOES I through X, inclusive and ROE CORPORATIONS XI through XX, inclusive, Defendants.

          JERRY S. BUSBY Nevada Bar #001107 COOPER LEVENSON, P.A. 1835 Village Center Circle Las Vegas, Attorneys for Defendant SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC.

          TANNER LAW FIRM COOPER LEVENSON, P.A. DAVID A. TANNER, ESQ. JERRY S. BUSBY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 008282 Nevada Bar No. 001107 8635 South Eastern Avenue Attorney for Plaintiff

          STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY SCHEDULE (SECOND REQUEST)

         1. The parties can show good cause for the delay in filing the present stipulation.

         This is the second and final stipulation submitted under LRII 26-4, The parties had a private mediation on June 25, 2018, Unfortunately, a settlement was not reached. Additional time is needed so both parties can retain medical experts to address what has emerged as the most significant issue in the case: did the accident cause Plaintiff to sustain a Traumatic Brain Injury? After retaining said experts, the parties will need time to disclose their respective experts, take each expert's deposition and potentially prepare motions. This stipulation is filed within 21 days of the expiration of the Initial-Expert Disclosure Deadline of July 5, 2018, The requirements to show good cause under LR 26-4 are the same as that for the modification of the scheduling order under Fed. R, Civ, P. 16(b).[1] "The good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party or parties seeking the extension. If the party seeking the modification 'was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion should not be granted, ''[2] In assessing whether good cause exists for an extension of time to complete discovery, the" Court looks to the quality and diligence f prior discovery efforts. It must weigh those efforts against the' what,' 'why,' 'when,' and 'how' of the discovery that remains..." [3]

         In sum, good cause is present and can be gleaned from the following facts: 1) the parties have conducted extensive and wide-ranging discovery; 2) there were numerous delays in discovery caused by health issues; 3) Plaintiffs alleged damages are complex in that Plaintiff is alleging the accident at SIMITH' S caused her to sustain a Traumatic Brain Injury; and 4) the parties had a private mediation on une 25, 2018. Largely due to the complexities of Plaintiff s alleged damages, the mediation was not successful.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between DAVID A TANNER, ESQ. of le TANNER LAW FIRM, Attorneys for Plaintiff TERESA BASSI, and JERRY S. BUSBY, ESQ. of le law firm COOPER LEVENSON, P.A., Attorneys for Defendant SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC. that certain discovery deadlines in this matter be continued for a period of 45 days to How the parties additional time to disclose their experts and for the parties to file dispositive motions thereafter in order to be ready for trial, Nothing in this stipulation should be construed as to imply either arty to waive any objections or other oppositions to the timeliness of any disclosures or the ability of ny experts or other witnesses to be allowed to testify at trial.

         IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the parties will not file a motion or make ny argument that damages were not timely or appropriately disclosed.

         A. STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE DISCOVERY THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

         1. The parties participated in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference;

         2. Both parties have made their disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.1 (a)(1).

         3. Both parties have served and responded to written discovery including interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents.

         4. Plaintiff and Defendant have collected most of Plaintiff s medical records.

         5. Defendant has deposed Plaintiff.

         6. Plaintiff has deposed ...


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.