Miller v. Clark County ( 2024 )

1 LEONARD T. FINK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6296 2 NAKESHA S. DUNCAN-PEREZ, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11556 3 CARMEN A. ERMER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 16075 4 SPRINGEL & FINK LLP 9075 W. Diablo Drive, Suite 302 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Telephone: (702) 804-0706 6 E-Mail: lfink@springelfink.com nduncan@springelfink.com 7 cermer@springelfink.com efiling@spingelfink.com 8 9 Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Defendant PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, 10 MARCO SOLORIO and LEONARD MORRIS 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 MACK MILLER, an individual; Case No.: 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA 15 Plaintiff, 16 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND vs. DISCOVERY DEADLINES 17 [SIXTH REQUEST] CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, a political 18 subdivision; DOE CLARK COUNTY OFFICERS, 19 in their personal capacities; DOE PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS, in their personal capacities; 20 PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; MARCO 21 SOLORIO, individually; LEONARD MORRIS, 22 individually; ROE PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY; DOES 1 through 20; ROE BUSINESS 23 ENTITIES 1 through 20, inclusive jointly and severally, 24 Defendants. 25 26 CLARK COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of State of Nevada, 27 Cross-Claimant, 28 1 vs. 2 PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY FIRM, LLC, a domestic limited liability Company, 3 4 Cross-Defendant. 5 6 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES [SIXTH REQUEST] 7 8 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, by and through 9 their respective counsel, that the discovery deadlines shall be extended in this matter. 10 I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 11 The parties have participated in the following discovery to date: 12 1. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 13 2. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 14 3. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 15 4. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 16 5. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 17 6. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; 18 7. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 19 8. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Seventh Supplemental disclosures; 20 9. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Eighth Supplemental disclosures; 21 10. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 22 11. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 23 12. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 24 13. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 25 14. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Initial disclosures; 26 15. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) First Supplemental disclosures; 27 16. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Second Supplemental disclosures; 28 17. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Third Supplemental disclosures; 1 18. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Preventive Measures; 2 19. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Preventive 3 Measures; 4 20. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Preventive Measures; 5 21. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for 6 Admissions; 7 22. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for 8 Production of Documents; 9 23. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Response to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of 10 Interrogatories; 11 24. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 12 25. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 13 26. Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff; 14 27. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for 15 Admissions; 16 28. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Requests for Production of 17 Documents; 18 29. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Clark County’s First Set of Interrogatories; 19 30. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; 20 31. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff; 21 32. Defendant Preventive Measures’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff; 22 33. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests for Admissions; 23 34. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Requests for Production of 24 Documents; 25 35. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Preventive Measures First Set of Interrogatories; 26 36. Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Preventive Measures; 27 37. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Preventive Measures; 28 38. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Preventive Measures; 1 39. Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark County; 2 40. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Clark County; 3 41. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Clark County; 4 42. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to 5 Defendant Preventive Measures; 6 43. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clark 7 County; 8 44. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to 9 Defendant Clark County; 10 45. Defendant Clark County’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production to 11 Defendant Clark County; 12 46. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request 13 for Production; 14 47. Deposition of Plaintiff (completed February 21, 2024); 15 48. Deposition of Kate Murray (completed February 15, 2024); 16 49. Deposition of Brian Cooperman (completed February 15, 2024); 17 50. Deposition of Elando Johnson (completed February 15, 2024); 18 51. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Ninth Supplemental disclosures; 19 52. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 20 53. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; 21 54. Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 22 55. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Fourth Supplemental disclosures; 23 56. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Fifth Supplemental disclosures; 24 57. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Sixth Supplemental disclosures; 25 58. Defendant Preventive Measures’ FRCP 26(a)(1) Seventh Supplemental disclosures; 26 59. Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(a)(1) Tenth Supplemental disclosures; 27 60. Deposition of Chief James Rogers (completed on May 9, 2024); 28 / / / 1 61. Deposition of Defendant Clark County’s FRCP 30(b)(6) designee(s) (completed on June 11, 2024); 2 and 3 62. Deposition of David Sutton/FRCP 30(b)(6) designee(s) for Defendant Preventive Measures 4 (completed June 27, 2024). 5 63. Defendant Preventive Measures’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production 6 (completed July 18, 2024); 7 64. Defendant Clark County’s Eighth Supplemental FRCP 26 Disclosure and Production of 8 Documents (completed July 31, 2024); 9 65. Defendant Clark County’s Supplemental Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories 10 (completed August 1, 2024); 11 66. Defendant Clark County’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for 12 Production of Documents (completed August 1, 2024); 13 67. Plaintiff’s Initial Designation of Expert Witnesses (completed August 15, 2024); and 14 68. Inspection of the area of the subject incident at The Clark County Government Center (completed 15 September 4, 2024). 16 69. Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Preventive ex-employee Defendant Marco Solorio for 17 September 20, 2024. 18 70. Defendant Preventive Measures noticed the Rule 35 Exam of Incarcerated Plaintiff, Mack Miller 19 (occurred October 11, 2024). 20 II. DISCOVERY REMAINING TO BE COMPLETED 21 1. Deposition of Defendant Leonard Morris; 22 2. Depositions of other fact witnesses present at the County Commission meeting during the subject 23 incident; 24 3. Supplemental FRCP 26 disclosures; 25 4. Expert disclosures; 26 5. Deposition of parties’ treating physicians and/or experts; and 27 6. Any additional discovery that is necessary as the parties proceed through discovery. 28 / / / 1 2 III. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY NOT COMPLETED WITHIN TIME SET BY 3 DISCOVERY PLAN 4 A motion to extend deadlines articulated in the court’s scheduling order must be supported by a 5 showing of good cause. See Local Rule 26-3; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 6 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause to extend a deadline exists if it cannot reasonably be met despite 7 the diligence of the party seeking extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In the instant matter, all parties 8 have diligently attempted to comply with the Court’s scheduling order – however, the parties have 9 determined they require additional time to obtain and produce key evidence related to the incident and 10 alleged damages. Without this necessary evidence the parties’ experts are likely deprived the ability to 11 formulate their opinions, complete their evaluations and prepare their reports accordingly, as well as 12 impairs counsels’ ability to reach a proper determination as to further discovery needed. 13 On July 2, 2024, the parties entered a stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines primarily based 14 on the need for additional time to take depositions, due to new counsel recently associating in for 15 Preventative Measures. Since that time, a Substitution of Counsel for Preventive Measures, Marco Solorio, 16 and Leonard Morris [ECF No. 45] was filed with the Court on September 5, 2024. The parties diligently 17 completed additional written discovery, a couple depositions and a site inspection since the last stipulation. 18 During that time, Preventive Measures determined the need to conduct a Rule 35 medical exam of 19 Plaintiff, Mack Miller, who is currently incarcerated at Three Lakes Valley Conservation Camp at 20 Southern Desert Correctional Center. Due to the complexity of scheduling this exam at the prison, 21 additional time is required to complete discovery. Further, as Preventive’s named security guards no 22 longer work for the company, it has taken additional time to secure meetings and depositions with them. 23 The remaining depositions and Rule 35 Exam will be critical to the claims and defenses in the instant 24 action and will have a direct impact on the opinions of the parties’ retained experts. 25 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the discovery deadlines be extended an additional 26 fifteen (15) days. The requested extension will ensure all parties have a full and fair opportunity to litigate 27 the claims and defenses on the merits. Therefore, and as set forth below, due diligence and good cause 28 can be shown to allow the Court, in its discretion, to extend the remaining deadlines as requested. 1 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY 2 Based on the foregoing, the proposed schedule for completing discovery is as follows: 3 Discovery Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Initial Expert Disclosures 10/28/2024 11/12/2024 4 All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 12/02/2024 12/17/2024 5 Discovery Cut-Off Date 01/07/2025 01/22/2025 Dispositive Motions 02/07/2025 02/24/2025 6 7 8 DATED this 25th of October 2024. DATED this 25th of October 2024. 9 SPRINGEL & FINK LLP RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM 10 /s/ Carmen A. Ermer /s/ Jonathan B. Lee 11 By: _________________________________ By: ______________________________ LEONARD T. FINK, ESQ. JONATHAN B. LEE, ESQ. 12 Nevada Bar No. 6296 Nevada Bar Number 13524 NAKESHA S. DUNCAN-PEREZ, ESQ. 801 South Fourth Street 13 Nevada Bar No. 11556 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 14 CARMER A. ERMER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 16075 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 15 9075 W. Diablo Drive, Suite 302 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 16 Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Defendant 17 PREVENTIVE MEASURES SECURITY 18 FIRM, LLC, MARCO SOLORIO, and LEONARD MORRIS 19 20 DATED this 25th day of October 2024. 21 CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 22 /s/ Joel K. Browning 23 By: __ __________ ______________ JOEL K. BROWNING, ESQ. 24 Nevada Bar No. 14489 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Ste. 5075 25 Las Vegas, Nevada 89155 26 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Claimant, 27 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA 28 1 Mack Miller v Clark County, NV, et al Case No. 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA 2 Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Sixth Request) 3 4 ORDER 5 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the discovery deadlines are 6 || extended as follows: Discovery Deadline 8 Initial Expert Disclosures 11/12/2024 All Rebuttal Expert Disclosures | 12/17/2024 9 Discovery Cut-Off Date 01/22/2025 10 02/24/2025 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 10/28/2024 15 \ 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 Mack Miller v Clark County, NV, et al U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:23-cv-00070-CDS-DJA 2 3 STATE OF NEVADA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF CLARK ) 5 I, Ella Wilczynski, declare: 6 I am a resident of and employed in Clark County, Nevada. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 9075 W. Diablo Drive, Suite 302, Las Vegas, 7 Nevada, 89148. 8 On October 25, 2024, I served the document described as Stipulation and Order to Extend 9 Discovery Deadlines [Sixth Request] on the following parties: 10 VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE: by submitting the foregoing to the United States District Court for 11 the District of Nevada’s ECF-filing System for Electronic Service upon the Court’s Service List ☒ pursuant to Rule26(a)(1). The copy of the document electronically served bears a notation of the date 12 and time of service. The original document will be maintained with the document(s) served and be made available, upon reasonable notice, for inspection by counsel or the Court. 13 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: service has been completed by emailing the document(s) to 14 ☐ the person(s) at the email address(es) listed on the Service List. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the 15 transmission of the document(s). 16 VIA U.S. MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon 17 fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Las Vegas Nevada. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s ☐ practice of collection and processing correspondence by mailing. Under that practice, it would be 18 deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid at Las Vegas, Nevada in the ordinary course of business. 19 20 VIA FACSIMILE: by transmitting to a facsimile machine maintained by the person on whom it is served at the facsimile machine telephone number at last given by that person on any document which 21 he/she has filed in the cause and served on the party making the service. The copy of the document ☐ served by facsimile transmission bears a notation of the date and place of transmission and the 22 facsimile telephone number to which transmitted. A confirmation of the transmission containing the facsimile telephone numbers to which the document(s) was/were transmitted will be maintained with 23 the document(s) served. 24 25 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 26 /s/ Ella Wilczynski 27 An employee of Springel & Fink LLP 28 stopsig From: Carmen Ermer Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 9:10 PM To: Joel Browning ; Jonathan Lee Cc: Nakesha Duncan-Perez ; J.J. Kashnow ; nicole@richardharrrislaw.com; Tina Crisp ; Renee Albert ; MillerMackvClarkCountyNevadaatalZ12283933@springelfink.filevineapp.com Subject: Re: Miller v. Clark County, et al. Thank you both for the quick response. Get Outlook for iOS From: Joel Browning Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 7:13:02 PM To: Jonathan Lee ; Carmen Ermer Cc: Nakesha Duncan-Perez ; J.J. Kashnow ; nicole@richardharrrislaw.com ; Tina Crisp ; Renee Albert ; Subject: Re: Miller v. Clark County, et al. I am out of town and don't have great signal, but you may use my signature on a stip to extend deadlines. Thanks, Get Outlook for Android From: Jonathan Lee Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 7:37:03 PM To: Carmen Ermer Cc: Joel Browning ; Nakesha Duncan-Perez ; J.J. Kashnow ; nicole@richardharrrislaw.com ; Tina Crisp ; Renee Albert ; MillerMackvClarkCountyNevadaatalZ12283933@springelfink.filevineapp.com Subject: Re: Miller v. Clark County, et al. CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use caution before opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Do not sign-in with your DA account credentials. You have my permission to submit to the court. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 24, 2024, at 4:46 PM, Carmen Ermer wrote:  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Counsel, Let this email confirm my conversation with Plaintiff’s office that Plaintiff is agreeable to extending deadlines two weeks. I haven’t heard back from Joel yet, but in order to get this moving quickly, I have attached a stipulation and order extending deadlines. Please let us know if you have any changes or if we may affix your electronic signatures. Carmen Ermer ​​​​ Attorney 075 W. Diablo Drive., Suite 302 | Las Vegas, NV 89148 Tel: 702-804-0706 | Fax: 702-804-0798 stopsig This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam.