Lopez v. Aldayem ( 2024 )

1 JARED G. CHRISTENSEN, ESQ. Nevada State Bar No. 11538 2 MELISSA INGLEBY, ESQ. Nevada State Bar No. 12935 3 ASHLEY L. ZURKAN, ESQ. Nevada State Bar No. 16473 4 BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA LLP 1160 N. TOWN CENTER DRIVE 5 SUITE 250 LAS VEGAS, NV 89144 6 TELEPHONE: (702) 258-6665 FACSIMILE: (702) 258-6662 7 jchristensen@bremerwhyte.com mingleby@bremerwhyte.com 8 azurkan@bremerwhyte.com 9 Attorneys for Defendants, AHMAD ALDAYEM and TRUCKING MASTERS 10 LLC dba TRUCKING MASTERS 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 14 JUAN PORTER LOPEZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-01126 15 Plaintiff, AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 16 vs. DISCOVERY DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST) 17 TRUCKING MASTERS, LLC, AHMAD A ALDAYEM and DOES I through X, 18 inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED TO by and between Plaintiff 22 JUAN PORTER LOPEZ (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorney of record, Bruce 23 Tingey, Esq., and Oliver Tingey, Esq. of the law firm TINGEY INJURY LAW FIRM, 24 and Defendants TRUCKING MASTERS, LLC and AHMAD A. ALDAYEM, by and 25 through their attorney of record, Jared G. Christensen, Esq, Melissa Ingleby, Esq., and 26 Ashley L. Zurkan, Esq., of the law firm Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP, and 27 for good cause that the discovery deadlines in the above-entitled matter be extended 28 by sixty (60) days to allow for necessary discovery. 1 I. 2 DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 3 Listed below is a statement specifying the discovery completed in this case: 4 1. Plaintiff’s Initial List of Witnesses and Production of Documents made 5 pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1). 6 2. Defendants’ Initial List of Witnesses and Production of Documents made 7 pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1). 8 3. Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and 9 Requests for Production to Plaintiff. Plaintiff answered this discovery on 10 October 21, 2024. 11 12 4. Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Disclosures made pursuant to FRCP 13 26(a)(1). 14 II. 15 DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 16 The Parties plan to complete the following discovery: 17 1. Produce medical records for recent treatment of Plaintiff; 18 2. At least one (1) FRCP 35 examination of Plaintiff; 19 3. Depositions of various witnesses including, but not limited to: 20 a. The parties; 21 b. The parties’ retained initial and rebuttal experts; and 22 c. Other percipient witnesses as needed; 23 4. Initial Expert Disclosures; 24 5. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures; and 25 6. Other discovery as needed. 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 III. 2 REASONS DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED 3 Good cause exists to grant the Parties’ request for an extension to discovery 4 deadlines. This is the first request for an extension. Despite the parties’ diligence and 5 good faith attempts to pursue discovery in preparation for their respective case, 6 significant discovery remains to be completed. 7 This extension is justified because, in advance of initial expert disclosures, 8 Plaintiff informed Defendants that the previously disclosed damages of $116,590 9 would balloon by a factor of 6 to over $600,000 in future treatment alone. Since 10 Plaintiff continues to treat for his injuries, this figure may continue to grow. In 11 approximately the second week of October, Defendant learned that Plaintiff had a 12 recent doctor appointment at which his provider recommended significant and brand- 13 new recommendations for future treatment which neither the parties nor their counsel 14 anticipated in setting the Scheduling Order for this matter. 15 Indeed, the parties have endeavored to avoid such interruptions or surprises 16 through frequent conferral. The parties had been in regular communication regarding 17 potential settlement and with a desire to avoid the expense of expert testimony, but 18 this new information has required Defendant to obtain further expert discovery which 19 will not be practicable by the existing deadline for expert disclosure. As such, the 20 deadlines cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the Parties who seek the 21 extension. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 22 1992). 23 The requested extension is sufficient to allow Defendant to engage an expert 24 witness to perform a Rule 35 examination of the Plaintiff and to prepare a thorough 25 report. Defendants have already identified a medical provider to perform this 26 examination and seek only the time sufficient for that expert to review the records in 27 this matter and to schedule an examination of the Plaintiff. This examination is 28 tentatively set for November 22, 2024, which is past the current expert deadline. Given 1 the multiple schedules involved, the parties estimate that sixty days will be sufficient 2 to accomplish this remaining discovery without undue prejudice to either party. Fewer 3 than sixty days would prejudice Defendants in their presentation of evidence and 4 defense of their case by denying them a reasonable opportunity to evaluate the future 5 damages alleged. 6 The parties are actively engaging in discovery in this matter with only expert 7 discovery and depositions remaining to be completed. Furthermore, the parties are 8 acting in good faith in filing this Stipulation and without an intent to improperly delay 9 the proceedings. Continuing the deadlines for completing discovery will not prejudice 10 any party or have a negative impact upon the judicial administration of this Honorable 11 Court. Accordingly, the Parties are requesting a 60-day extension to all remaining 12 discovery deadlines. 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IV. 2 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 3 The Parties hereto, and for good cause described in this stipulation, and in 4 Jaccord with Local Rule 6-1 and Local Rule 26-3, request this Honorable Court to adopt 5 | and approve this stipulated extension to the discovery plan, and continue the discovery 6 | deadlines as requested below: 7 CURRENT PROPOSED 8 DISCOVERY EVENT DEADLINES DEADLINES Initial Expert Disclosures November 7, 2024 January 6, 2025 9 | | Rebuttal Expert Disclosures December 9, 2024 | February 7, 2025 10 Close of Discove January 6, 2025 March 7, 2025 February 5, 2025 | April 6, 2025 11] | Joint Pre-Trial Order March 7, 2025 May 6, 2025 12 13 The parties hereby stipulate to the proposed changes in the discovery deadlines. 14 | Dated: October 22, 2024 Dated: October 22, 2024 Is BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA_ TINGEY INJURY LAW FIRM 16 17 | / Ashley L. Zurkan /s/ Oliver Tingey VARED ¢. CHRISTENSEN. ESQ. BRUCE TINGEY, ESQ. 18 | Neva tate Bar No. 19 | Nevada State Bar No. 1293 OLIVER TINGEY, ESQ. 50 ASHTEY ZURKAN ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 16638 eva e Bar No. “ti Attorneys for Defendant AHMAD ALDAYEM Attorney for Plaintiff 21 Jand TRUCKING MASTERS LLC dba TRUCKING MASTERS 22 Hl 23 H/ 24 H/ 25 H/ 26 H/ 27 H/ 28 1 ORDER 5 Based upon the stipulation of the parties hereto, and for good cause appearing: 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the discovery deadlines are extended as follows: 4 2 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED: 13 km 4 7 QZ 1s UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 Dated: October 23, 2024 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28