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.

Kendrick v. Clark County

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 28, 2019

JOHNNY L. KENDRICK, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; JOHN MARTIN in his official and/or individual capacities; PATRICK SCHREIBER in his official and/or individual capacities; CAROLYN BANKS, in her official and/or individual capacities; and, SANDY JEANTETE, in her official and/or individual capacities, Defendants.

         (First Request)

          James P. Kemp, Esq., Victoria L. Neal, Esq., Kemp & Kemp, Attorneys for Plaintiff Johnny Kendrick Jr.

          Steven B. Wolfson, District Attorney, Scott R. Davis Deputy District Attorney Attorneys for Defendant Clark County, John Martin, Patrick Schreiber, and Sandy Jeantete.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER

          HON. GEORGE W. FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, Plaintiff JOHNNY L. KENDRICK (“Plaintiff”) by and through its counsel, Kemp & Kemp, and Defendant CLARK COUNTY (“Defendant”), by and through its counsel, Clark County District Attorney, hereby stipulate to amend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24) by extending the outstanding discovery deadlines for a period of sixty (60) days. This is the first request for an extension to the discovery plan and scheduling order in this matter. The requested extension is sought in good faith and not for purposes of delay.

         REASONS FOR REQUESTING EXTENSION

         The parties have worked diligently and cooperatively in resolving discovery issues in this matter so as to avoid intervention by the Court. This includes, but is not limited to, allowing additional time to answer formal written discovery requests. Currently, the parties are engaged in amicable discussions to resolve issues surrounding the production of non-party employee comparator files and finalizing a negotiated protective order. Production of these comparator files is critical to prosecute and/or defend this case and requires the utmost care to protect any possible privacy concerns of the non-party employee comparators. In addition, the parties have engaged in further settlement discussions. If this matter could be resolved, this would save the parties and the Court valuable time and resources. Finally, Plaintiff's counsel has two (2) trials set for the month of April (one in Federal Court and one in State Court), and Defendant's counsel has trial set for the month of May.

         1. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO Dated:

         Plaintiff:

Initial disclosures to Defendant September 12, 2018
First supplemental disclosures to Defendant November 16, 2018
First set of written discovery to Defendant January 18, 2019
Second supplemental disclosures to Defendant February ...

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.