Ansara v. Maldonado ( 2021 )

MARTIN I. MELENDREZ, ESQ. 1 Nevada Bar No. 7818 2 BRITANNICA D. COLLINS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13324 3 HAWKINS MELENDREZ, P.C. 9555 Hillwood Drive, Suite 150 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 5 Phone: (702) 318-8800 Fax: (702) 318-8801 6 mmelendrez@hawkinsmelendrez.com bcollins@hawkinsmelendrez.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant Tropicana DE, LLC 8 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 9 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 ROBERT ANSARA, as Special ) CASE NO.: 2:19-CV-01394-GMN-VCF Administrator of the estate of D.B., born ) 12 December 18, 2015, and died August 15, ) AMENDED STIPULATION AND 13 2017, and GABRIELLE BRANON- ) ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CHESLEY, individually, as the Natural ) (Fourth Request) 14 Mother of D.B., DAVID BANKS, ) individually and as the Natural Father of ) 15 D.B., ) 16 ) Plaintiffs, ) 17 ) v. ) 18 ) 19 GLORIA MALDONADO, individually; ) AUDRA GUITERREZ, individually; ) 20 CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision ) of the State of Nevada, DOE individuals I- ) 21 XX; ROE CLARK COUNTY ) 22 DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES ) EMPLOYEES I-XX, individually and in ) 23 their official capacities; TROPICANA DE, ) LLC, d/b/a SIEGAL SUITES OF ) 24 TROPICANA, a Foreign Limited Liability ) 25 Corporation; AND DOE SECURITY ) COMPANY and ZOE CORPORATIONS ) 26 XXI-XXX, ) ) 27 Defendants. 28 ____________________________________ AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 1 (Fourth Request) 2 3 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties that discovery shall be extended 4 Ninety Days (90) days until March 10, 2022. 5 This litigation arose out of an alleged wrongful death that occurred on August 15, 2017. The 6 parties have engaged in extensive motion work during the pendency of this litigation, as summarized 7 below: 8 1. Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint on (ECF No. 5) on August 14, 2019. 9 2. A First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) was filed on August 15, 2019. 10 3. Defendant Tropicana DE, LLC filed their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) on 11 September 9, 2019. 12 4. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant Tropicana’s Motion (ECF No. 13 21)on September 30, 2019. 14 5. Defendant Tropicana filed their Reply (ECF no. 28) thereto on October 7, 15 2019. 16 6. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (ECF 17 no. 31) on October 8, 2019. 18 7. Defendant Richard Whitley filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) on 19 October 24, 2019. 20 8. Defendants Clark County, Gloria Maldonado, Audra Gutierrez/Guerro, 21 Yolanda King and Tim Burch filed their Joinder to Richard Whitley’s Motion 22 to Dismiss (ECF No. 42); and their Separate Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.45) 23 on October 31, 2019. 24 9. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (ECF No. 48) to Richard Whitley’s Motion to 25 Dismiss on November 8, 2019. 26 10. Defendant Richard Whitley filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 27 50)on November 13, 2019. 28 1 11. Defendant Clark County, Gloria Maldonado, Audra Gutierrez/Guerro, 2 Yolanda King and Tim Burch filed their Joinder to Richard Whitley’s Reply 3 to Response to Motion to Dismiss (ECF. No. 52) on November 14, 2019. 4 12. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendant Clark County’s Motion to Dismiss 5 (ECF No. 53) on November 14, 2019. 6 13. Defendant Clark County, Gloria Maldonado, Audra Gutierrez/Guerro, 7 Yolanda King and Tim Burch filed their Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 8 Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (ECF no. 56) on November 26, 9 2019. 10 14. The Court entered an Order (ECF No. 63) regarding the Motions to Dismiss 11 filed by all Defendants (ECF Nos. 16, 41, and 45) as well as Plaintiffs Motion 12 to Amend (ECF No. 31) on May 7, 2020. In that Order, the Court granted in 13 part and denied in part Defendants’ Motions as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion to 14 Amend. Specifically, the Court held that the claims against the Defendants 15 were dismissed without prejudice but that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend was 16 granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. 63 P. 20:1-20. Plaintiffs were 17 awarded twenty-one (21) days from the date of the Order to file a Second 18 Amended Complaint. 19 15. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64) on May 28, 20 2020. 21 16. A Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of Defendants Yolanda King and 22 Timothy Burch with Prejudice was signed and entered on June 5, 2020 (ECF 23 No. 69). 24 17. Defendant Tropicana filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second 25 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 70) on June 11, 2020. 26 18. Defendant Clark County, et. al., filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ 27 Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 72) on June 25, 2020. 28 1 19. The Stipulation and Order for Extension to Respond to Defendant Tropicana 2 DE, LLC Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 74) was entered on June 26, 2020. This 3 stipulation granted Plaintiffs until July 27, 2020 to Oppose Defendant’s 4 Motion. 5 20. A second Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time was entered in to by 6 Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant Tropicana. This Stipulation extended 7 Plaintiff’s time to oppose Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second 8 Amended Complaint from July 27, 2020, until September 10, 2020. This Order 9 was entered on July 21, 2020 (ECF No. 82). 10 21. On July 23, 2020, the Court entered an Order on the Stipulation for Extension 11 to Respond to Defendant Clark County et. al.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs 12 Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 84). This Order granted Plaintiffs an 13 extension until August 31, 2020 to respond to said Motion. 14 22. On August 31, 2020, the Court entered an Order extending discovery - second 15 request (ECF No. 86). 16 23. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiffs’ Response to Clark County’s Motion to 17 Dismiss was filed (ECF No. 87). 18 24. On September 3, 2020, the Court entered an Order re extension of time (First 19 Request) to Reply re Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No 88). 20 25. On September 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed Response to Motion to Dismiss (ECF 21 No. 90). 22 26. On September 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 23 91). 24 27. On September 11, 2020, The Court entered Order regarding Defendant 25 Tropicana De, LLC’s Stipulation for Substitution of Attorneys (ECF No. 93). 26 28. On September 16, 2020, Defendant Tropicana De, LLC filed a Reply regarding 27 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 94). 28 1 29. On September 23, 2020, Defendant filed Response to Motion to Amend 2 Complaint (ECF No. 95). 3 30. On September 25, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Extend Deadlines 4 to Reply to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 97). 5 31. On October 5, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Stipulation to Extend 6 Deadline to Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 99) 7 32. On October 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply regarding Motion to Amend (ECF 8 No. 100). 9 33. On October 9, 2020, Defendants Clark County, Audra Gutierrez, Gloria 10 Maldonado filed a Response to Motion to Amend (ECF No. 101). 11 34. On October 9, 2020, Defendants Clark County, Audra Gutierrez, Gloria 12 Maldonado filed a Reply regarding Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 102). 13 35. On October 9, 2020, Defendants Clark County, Audra Gutierrez, Gloria 14 Maldonado filed a Motion to Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 103). 15 36. On October 15, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Stipulation to file 16 Reply re Motion to Amend (ECF No. 106). 17 37. On November 10, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Status Report (ECF No. 108) 18 38. On November 20, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Stipulation for 19 Extension of Time (Second Request) to Reply to Plaintiffs’ Countermotion to 20 Amend Complaint (ECF No. 111). 21 39. On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply re Motion to Amend (ECF No. 22 112). 23 40. On February 22, 2021, the Court entered an Order Denying Defendant 24 Tropicana’s Motion to Dismiss, Granting in Part and Denying in Part Clark 25 County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Granting Clark County Defendants’ 26 Motion for Leave to File, and Denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to 27 Amend (ECF No. 113). 28 1 41. On March 8, 2021, Defendant Tropicana De, LLC filed Answer to Second 2 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 114). 3 42. On March 9, 2021, Defendants Clark County, Audra Gutierrez, Gloria 4 Maldonado filed Answer to Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 115). 5 43. On March 17, 202, a Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (Third 6 Request) was filed. (ECF No. 118) 7 44. On March 17, 2021, an Order Granting Stipulation and Order to Extend 8 Discovery (Third Request) was filed. (ECF No. 119). 9 45. On March 19, 2021, an Errata to Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery 10 (Third Request) was filed. (ECF No. 120). 11 46. On March 19, 2021, a corrected filing of Second Amended Stipulation and 12 Order to Extend Discovery (Third Request) was filed. (ECF No. 122). 13 47. on March 19, 2021, an Order Granting Second Amended Stipulation and Order 14 to Extend Discovery (Third Request) was filed. (ECF No. 123). 15 In January 2021, counsel for Plaintiffs Samantha A. Martin, Esq. found out that she was 16 pregnant with a due date in August 2021. It is Ms. Martin’s intention to take maternity leave from 17 August 2021 until the end of October/beginning of November 2021 depending on her health and the 18 health of the child. Ms. Martin will not be available for any depositions and will have limited 19 availability to review the necessary expert disclosures. Furthermore, the parties anticipate that there 20 will be numerous depositions that need to be taken to fully litigate all of the claims and defenses in 21 this matter. The ninety-day (90) day extension of time will ensure that the parties have ample time to 22 conduct any and all discovery necessary for this matter. The parties recognize that this is a lengthy 23 discovery period but given Ms. Martin’s pregnancy as well as all of the claims, leave as well as all of 24 the claims, defenses and parties at issue here, they believe that the ninety (90) day extension is 25 necessary. As such, the parties agree that an additional Ninety (90) days are needed to disclose 26 experts, complete party and witness depositions and complete discovery. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. Discovery Completed to Date 2 1. A Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 39) was filed on October 23, 3 2019. 4 2. Plaintiff served their Initial FRCP Disclosures on October 28, 2019, and First and 5 Second supplement on September 4, 2020. 6 3. Defendant Tropicana De, LLC served their Initial FRCP Disclosures on October 29, 7 2019. 8 4. Defendant Clark County, et. al. served their FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures on October 9 30, 2019. 10 5. Defendant Clark County, et. al served their FRCP 26 First Supplemental Disclosures 11 with exhibits on February 25, 2020. 12 6. Plaintiffs propounded their First Set of Discovery to Defendant Tropicana on February 13 12, 2020and received Tropicana’s Responses on April 27, 2020. 14 7. Plaintiffs propounded their First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant Clark County, 15 et. al. on February 12, 2020, and received their response on April 29, 2020. 16 8. Defendant Clark County, et. al. served their Second Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures 17 and exhibits on April 29, 2020. 18 9. Defendant Clark County, et. al. propounded their first set of written discovery on 19 Plaintiffs on April 21, 2020, and received their response on June 9, 2020. 20 10.Plaintiffs propounded Second Set of written discovery on Defendant Clark County on 21 April 13, 2020. 22 11.Plaintiffs propounded Third Set of written discovery on Defendant Clark County on 23 June 9, 2020, and received their response on April 10, 2020, and received their 24 response on July 30, 2020. 25 12.Plaintiffs propounded Second Set of written discovery on Defendant Tropicana on 26 June 11, 2020, and received their responses on August 21, 2020. 27 13.Defendant Clark County, et. al. served their Third Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures 28 and exhibits on June 26, 2020, 1 14.Defendant Clark County, et. al. served their Fourth Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures 2 and exhibits on July 30, 2020, 3 15. Defendant Clark County, et al. served their Fifth Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures 4 and exhibits on May 20, 2021. 5 16. Defendant Clark County, et al. responded to Plaintiff’s Second set of Production of 6 Documents on April 16, 2021. 7 17.Defendant Clark County, et al. served their Sixth Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures 8 and exhibits on May 20, 2021. 9 18.Defendant Clark County, et al. served their Seventh Supplemental FRCP26 10 disclosures and exhibits on July 8, 2021. 11 19.Defendant Clark County, et al. served their Eighth Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures 12 and exhibits on July 30, 2021. 13 20.The deposition of Terry Kukyendoll was set for October 6, 2020, and has been 14 continued to October 25, 2021. 15 21.The deposition of Rebecca Taylor was set for October 7, 2020, but needs to be re- 16 noticed. 17 22.The deposition of Sasha Scott was set for October 7, 2020 but needs to be re-noticed. 18 23.The deposition of Gloria Maldonado is TBD. 19 24.The deposition of Audra Gutierrez is TBD. 20 25.The deposition of Tim Burch is TBD. 21 26.The deposition of Anthony Diggs is TBD. 22 27.The deposition of Valerie Shyface is TBD. 23 28.The deposition of Anne Sullivan is TBD. 24 29.The deposition of Michelle Brown is TBD. 25 30.The deposition of Traci Silva was taken July 26, 2021. 26 31.The deposition of Mark Perkinson was taken July 26, 2021. 27 32. Clark County served fourteen (14) Notices of Taking Custodian of Records 28 Deposition scheduled for August 30, 2021 (Records only by August 23, 2021). 1 32.Plaintiffs served their Third Supplemental FRCP26 disclosures and exhibits on July 2 30, 2021. 3 33.Plaintiffs served their Fourth supplemental FRCP26disclosures and exhibits on August 4 4, 2021. 5 II. Description of Additional Proposed Discovery 6 The parties discussed what additional discovery needs to be completed in this matter. It was 7 determined that, in order to fully litigate and investigate all alleged claims and defenses, the parties 8 need to engage in the following: 9 1. Depositions of parties and witnesses. 10 2. Additional disclosure of documents and written discovery. 11 3. Retention of experts. 12 4. Disclosure of all experts and their reports as well as depositions of the same. 13 Proposed Schedule for Completing All Remaining Discovery 14 The parties wish to extend the dates for discovery as follows: Current Dates Proposed Dates 15 Last day to amend pleadings or add parties CLOSED CLOSED 16 Last day to serve Plaintiff’s Initial Expert September 10, 2021 December 9, 2021 Disclosures 17 Last day to serve Defendant’s Initial Expert October 8, 2021 January 6, 2022 18 Disclosures Last day to serve Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s November 8, 2021 February 7, 2022 19 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Last day to complete discovery December 10, 2021 March 10, 2022 20 Last day to file dispositive motions January 7, 2022 April 7, 2022 21 Joint Pretrial Order May 9, 2022 22 III. Reasons Why Good Cause Exists to Extend Expert Discovery Deadlines 23 FRCP 16(b)(5) provides that the scheduling order “shall not be modified” except upon 24 a showing of good cause. The purpose of this rule is “to offer a measure of certainty in pretrial 25 proceedings, ensuring that at some point both the parties and pleadings will be fixed.” Nutton v. Sunset 26 Station, Inc., Nev. Adv. Rep. 34, 357 P.3d 966, 971 (Nev. App. 2015). Good cause is established by 27 showing that the current deadline cannot be met despite the requesting party’s diligence in attempting 28 to meet said deadline. Diligence in attempting to meet a deadline may be determined by considering If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after 1 the explanation for the untimely conduct; the importance of the requested untimely action; the 2 potential prejudice in allowing the untimely conduct; and the availability of a continuance to cure 3 such prejudice. Id. at 971-72. 4 As outlined above, the parties have been engaged in extensive motion work relating to 5 Plaintiffs various claims and the defenses to the same and, until recently, the parties were without an 6 operative complaint fully outlining the parties involved in the litigation and the claims against them. 7 Parties were therefore unable to take depositions of any percipient witnesses, retain experts or send 8 out written discovery narrowly tailored to the claims at issue. With the parties finally having an 9 operative complaint from which to work, discovery can truly begin in this matter. Additionally, now 10 that Ms. Martin is pregnant with a due date in August 2021, the parties are requesting additional time 11 to allow for Ms. Martin’s post-partum recovery. 12 The parties recognize that this is the fourth discovery extension requested. However, given 13 the nature of this case and the extensive motion work up to this point, the parties agree that additional 14 time is needed to complete discovery and to fully litigate this matter. This request is not being made 15 in an attempt to delay the litigation of this matter but instead is being requested as a result of the issues 16 outlined above as well as the party’s inability to fully litigate the claim up to this point. 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] The requested extension of time for completion of discovery will allow the parties and their 2 || counsel to fully litigate this matter. 3 4 Date:__ August 24, 2021 Date: August 24, 2021 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM HAWKINS MELENDREZ, PC 5 /s/ Jonathan Lee /s/ Martin I. Melendrez 6 || JONATHAN LEE, ESQ. MARTIN I. MELENDREZ, ESQ. 7 Nevada Bar No. 013524 Nevada Bar No. 7818 801 South Fourth Street 9555 Hillwood Drive, Suite 150 8 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendant 9 Tropicana DE, LLC 10 Date:August 24, 2021 OLSON CANNON GORMLEY & z 11 || STOBERSKI (s/ Felicia Galati 13 || FELICIA GALATI ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7341 = 14 || 9950 West Cheyenne Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89129 I5 Attorneys for Defendants 16 || Clark County, Gloria Maldonado, Audra Guitierrez/Guerro, 17 18 ORDER 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 3 Cam Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge 24 DATED August 25, 2021 25 26 27 28 From: Felicia Galati Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 8:25 AM To: Elizabeth Gould ; Jonathan Lee Cc: Samantha Martin ; Jessica Dennis ; Nicole Gilenson ; Britannica Collins ; Martin Melendrez ; Denise Giancola Subject: RE: Ansara v Clark County - Amended SAO Extend 4th This is fine. You can e-sign for me. Thank you. Felicia Galati, Esq., Shareholder Olson Cannon Gormley & Stoberski 9950 West Cheyenne Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 PH: 702-384-4012 FX: 702-383-0701 Privileged and Confidential This email, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or company named and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is prohibited. This email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is received and opened, and it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure it is virus free, and no responsibility is accepted by Olson Cannon Gormley & Stoberski, for any loss of damage arising in any way from its use. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender at 702-384-4012, or by electronic email. From: Elizabeth Gould Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 8:15 AM To: Jonathan Lee ; Felicia Galati Cc: Samantha Martin ; Jessica Dennis ; Nicole Gilenson ; Britannica Collins ; Martin Melendrez ; Denise Giancola Subject: RE: Ansara v Clark County - Amended SAO Extend 4th Good Morning: Attached, please find the Amended Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (fourth Request). Please review and let me know if we may use your e-signature for submission to the Court. Elizabeth Lee Gould Paralegal HAWKINSMELENDREZ ATTOANE ¥ @ aT Law 9555 Hillwood Dr., Ste. 150 Las Vegas, NV 89134 Tel.: 702-318-8800 Fax.: 702-318-8801 egould@hawkinsmelendrez.com IMPORTANT: This communication and attachments may be: (1) subject to the Attorney/Client Privilege, (2) an attorney work product, and/or (3) strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the recipient of this message, I did not intend to waive and do not waive any privileges or the confidentiality of this transmission, and you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. You may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this message and any attachments. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) at egould@hawkinsmelendrez.com or via telephone at 702.318.8800 and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal criminal law. This communication does not reflect an intention by the sender or the sender's client or principal to conduct a transaction or make any agreement by electronic means. Nothing contained in this message or in any attachment shall satisfy the requirements for a writing, and nothing contained herein shall constitute a contract or electronic signature under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, any version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any other statute governing electronic transmissions. Think Green. Save Green. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Jonathan Lee Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 6:19 PM To: Elizabeth Gould ; Nicole Gilenson Cc: Denise Giancola ; Martin Melendrez ; Britannica Collins Subject: RE: Ansara v Clark County - Amended SAO Extend 4th Yes, you may submit. Jonathan Lee Lawyer - Partner RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM a= Las Vegas Reno 801 South 4th Street 6900 S. McCarran Blvd., #1010 Las Vegas NV 89101 Reno NV 89509 Ph. (702) 444-4444 x 229 Ph. (775) 222-2222 DIEEENDERS | GB van ners "333.3333 ™OBS-GB5S ° 4-800-LamTigers Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments are for the named person's use only. The message and any attachment may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately notify the sender, delete all copies of it from your system, and destroy any hard copies of it. Please do not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Further, this message shall not be considered, nor shall it constitute an electronic transaction, non-paper transaction, and/or electronic signature under any and all electronic acts including the Uniform Electronic Transfer Act and/or the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. From: Elizabeth Gould Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:11 PM To: Jonathan Lee ; Nicole Gilenson Cc: Denise Giancola ; Martin Melendrez ; Britannica Collins Subject: FW: Ansara v Clark County - Amended SAO Extend 4th Good Afternoon: lam just following up on the email that | sent this morning asking if | can affix your signature on the Amended SAO. We had mistakenly changed the date for Amending pleadings, and that date had expired some time ago. As such, we are correcting that.