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.

O'Neal v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 18, 2019

BRYAN EDWARD O'NEAL, an individual; and KATHLEEN ROBINSON, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; LINDA THEOBALD, an individual; PROKOPIOS ZIROS, an individual; GUSTAVO RIOS, an individual; CLARK COUNTY, a County existing under the laws of the State of Nevada; NAPHCARE, INC., an Alabama corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 25, inclusive; and POE MEDICAL PERSONNEL 1 through 25, inclusive; Defendants.

          LYSSA S. ANDERSON RYAN W. DANIELS KAEMPFER CROWELL Attorneys for Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Linda Theobald, Prokopios Ziros, and Gustavo Rios

          BRANDON W. MCCOY MCCOY LAW GROUP, LTD. Attorney for Plaintiffs

          S.BRENT VOGEL JEFFREY H. BALLIN LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH Attorneys for NaphCare, Inc.

          STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties that the discovery cut-off date of January 27, 2020, be continued for a period of forty-five (45) days up to and including March 13, 2020, for the purpose of allowing Plaintiffs to respond to outstanding written discovery, take the depositions of parties, and disclose expert witnesses.

         DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE

         Defendants LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, LINDA THEOBALD, PROKOPIOS ZIROS, and GUSTAVO RIOS (“LVMPD Defendants”); NAPHCARE, INC. (“NaphCare”); and Plaintiffs, BRYAN O'NEAL AND KATHLEEN ROBISON (“Plaintiffs”) have provided their initial Rule 26(f) Disclosures. LVMPD Defendants have also provided their first supplemental disclosures to the parties.

         Both Defendants CLARK COUNTY and NaphCare have served written discovery on Plaintiffs. Plaintiff, Kathleen Robinson still has not responded to NaphCare's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. The LVMPD Defendants served their initial written discovery requests (Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admissions) on each of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs provided responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions only. LVMPD Defendants and NaphCare served various third-party Subpoenas. LVMPD Defendants re-served the Requests for Production of Documents following the appearance of Plaintiffs' new Counsel and those responses have not yet been received.[1] The depositions of Plaintiffs and a third-party witness were scheduled to be taken in September 2019, however, the depositions had to be vacated due to calendar conflicts. The depositions of Plaintiffs had been re-scheduled to October 2019 and November 2019. However, on the eve of Plaintiff Kathleen Robinson's deposition, Counsel was informed that she would not be able to appear for her deposition. The deposition was re-scheduled to November 7, 2019; however, it had to be re-set again to November 18, 2019 because Defendants had not yet received her discovery responses. Although the depositions were rescheduled, the parties need to re-schedule them to December 2019 as they still have not received the discovery responses.

         DISCOVERY YET TO BE COMPLETED

         Plaintiffs will respond to the outstanding discovery responses no later than November 29, 2019. The depositions of Plaintiff Kathleen Robinson will be taken on December 9, 2019 and the deposition of Plaintiff Bryan O'Neal will be taken on December 20, 2019. Additional written discovery and depositions may be taken. The parties will disclose expert and any necessary rebuttal expert reports.

         REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED

         The parties have been diligent in completing discovery in this matter. However, as this Court may recall, Plaintiffs' prior attorney became very ill and Plaintiffs had to retain alternate Counsel. As a result, the first six (6) requested extension of discovery were due to this issue alone. Discovery was at a standstill for that entire period of time. Plaintiffs did retain new Counsel and that Counsel has been working to provide the outstanding discovery responses to LVMPD Defendants and NaphCare and the parties have been working to coordinate the depositions of Plaintiffs and a third-party. The parties need a brief extension to accomplish these tasks and coordinate the calendars of all Counsel and the parties.

         LVMPD Defendants and NaphCare cannot efficiently conduct the depositions of Plaintiffs until the responses to written discovery are received. In addition, the Defendants' experts have stated that it will be necessary to review all discovery responses and deposition transcripts to prepare their reports. As such, the parties are asking for one more brief extension so that this discovery can be completed prior to the expert disclosure deadline.

         PROPOSED EXTENDED DEADLINES

         Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated and respectfully requested that this ...


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.