Rodriguez v. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company ( 2024 )

1 || ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3402 2 || TRACY A. EGLET, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 6419 DANIELLE C. MILLER, ESQ. 4 Nevada Bar No. 9127 EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM HENRIOD 5 || 400 South 7" Street, 4" Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 6 || Tel.: 702-450-5400 Fax: 702-450-5451 7 || eservice@egletlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 MAYRA RODRIGUEZ, an _individual, CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-02108-MMD-BNW 11 □□ MARIO RODRIGUEZ, an individual, MQ Db STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND O Plaintiffs, SCHEDULING ORDER 13 |Iv. Z 14 ||BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE 15 COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation; DOE INSURANCE COMPANYZUIES) 1| through 40; 16 || DOE INSURANCE AGENT(S) 1 through 40; DOE INSURANCE AGENCY(IES) 1 through 17 40; DOE(G) 1 through 40; and ROE 18 CORPORATION(S) 1 through 40; inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(a), Plaintiffs, MAYRA RODRIGUEZ ar MARIO RODRIGUEZ (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANC 3 COMPANY (“Brotherhood Mutual”) hereby respectfully submit the following Stipulate 74 || Discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order: 5 I, MEETING 26 The following parties’ counsel met via Zoom videoconference for an FRCP 26( 7 conference on January 24, 2024: 28 1. Danielle C. Miller, Esq. representing Plaintiffs Mayra Rodriguez and Mar 1 || Rodriguez; 2 2. Scott B. Van Alfen, Esq. representing Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company. 3 I. INITIAL DISCLOSURES 4 The parties will complete the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on « 5 || before Wednesday, February 7, 2024. 6 it. PROTECTIVE ORDER 7 The parties are not requesting a protective order. 8 IV. DISCOVERY PLAN 9 The parties jointly propose the following discovery plan: 10 A. Discovery Cut-Off Date. NO 11 The parties propose that the discovery period run until January 23, 2025 which is twel\ 3 = 12 |)months from the date of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference. This exceeds the 180-dé Q Z. 13 || presumptive outside limit provided by LR 26-1(b)(1) for completing discovery for the □□□□□□ < 14 || explained in Section VI below. 15 B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) Disclosures (Experts). 16 The parties proposed that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) disclosures of experts and expert repor 17 || proceed, as it is permitted to proceed on order of the Court by LR 26-1(b)(3), as follows: 18 1. All parties shall disclose initial experts and expert reports by Friday, November 2: ae 19 }| 2024; 20 2. All parties shall disclose rebuttal experts and their reports by Tuesday, January 2 21 || 2025; 22 3. The parties shall have until the proposed discovery cut-off date to complete a 23 || expert depositions. 24 C. Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties. 25 The parties shall file any motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties no later the 26 || Friday, October 25, 2024. 27 D. Dispositive Motions. 28 The parties shall have until Tuesday, February 21, 2025 to file dispositive motions. 1 E. Pretrial Disclosures/Order. 2 The joint pretrial order shall be filed no later than Friday, March 21, 2025, unless 3 || dispositive motion is filed in which case the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 day 4 || after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order. 5 V. JUSTIFICATION FOR LONGER DISCOVERY PERIOD 6 The parties believe the Court should permit a longer period of time for discovery the 7 || provided in LR 26-1(b)(1) due to the nature of this case and the issues involved. 8 Collection of medical records frequently leads to the identification of additional relevai 9 || medical providers whose records must be obtained in subsequent requests. Each request, fro: 10 || sending the subpoena to actually receiving the records, is likely to take 30 days or more. □□□□□□□ NO 11 || Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company has indicated that they would like to conduct addition 3 = 12 || discovery prior to discussing settlement. Q Z. 13 The parties submit that their proposed discovery plan is an efficient and realistic schedu < 14 || for completing the significant amount of discovery contemplated in this case. 15 VI. OTHER ISSUES 16 A. Alternative Dispute Resolution. 17 The parties have conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute resolutic 18 || processes and are amenable to doing so. fale] 19 B. Alternative Forms of Case Disposition. 20 The parties have considered trial by magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fe 21 ||R. Civ. P. 73, and the use of the short trial program. The parties do not consent to either at th 22 || time. 23 C. Electronic Evidence. 24 The parties have considered the possibility of presenting evidence to the jury in electron 25 ||format. In the event that any electronic evidence is submitted by either party, the partic 26 || understand that such evidence must be submitted in a format that is compatible with the Court 27 || electronic jury evidence display system. The parties will consult the Court’s website or conta: 28 || the courtroom administrator for instructions about how to prepare evidence in a format that mee 1 || these requirements. 2 D. Court Conference. 3 The parties do not request a conference with the Court before entry of the scheduling orde 4 || DATED this 30th day of January, 2024. DATED this 30th day of January, 2024. 5 || EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM HENRIOD CHRISTIAN, KRAVITZ, □□□□□□ 6 JOHNSON & SLUGA, LLC g By: /s/ Danielle C. Miller, Esq. By: /s/ Scott B. Van Alfen, Esq. ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. TYLER J. WATSON, ESQ. 9 || Nevada Bar No. 3402 Nevada Bar No. 11735 TRACY A. EGLET, ESQ. SCOTT B. VAN ALFEN, ESQ. 10 || Nevada Bar No. 6419 Nevada Bar 5532 Wl DANIELLE C. MILLER, ESQ. 8985 So. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200 AO Nevada Bar No. 9127 Las Vegas, NV 89123 3 19 || 400 South 7" Street, 4 Floor tjwatson @ksjattorneys.com Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 svanalfen @ksjattorneys.com Q Z, 13 || Tel.: 702-450-5400 Attorneys for Defendant 14 || Fax: 702-450-5451 eservice @egletlaw.com 15 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 When a proposed DPSO sets deadlines longer than those specified in LR 26-1(b), "the plan must state on its face 'SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.” The parties fai 17 to include such a heading. The Stipulation is granted, but the parties are warned that future 5 8 failure to abide by the Local Rules will result in summary denial of stipulations. ae 1 IT IS SO ORDERED: ORD 9 Lea 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28