Case Information
*1 Bruce D. Tingey, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5151 Justin L. Dewey, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14508 Tingey Injury Law Firm 817 S. Main Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 333∙0000 Facsimile: (702) 333∙0001 shane@tingeylawfirm.com eservice@tingeylawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No: 2:23-cv-00754-JAD-BNW TANAPONG PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA and TEERANAI PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA,
Plaintiffs, vs. JAMES PATRICK BROGAN,
Defendant. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (FIRST REQUEST)
COMES NOW Plaintiffs TANAPONG PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA (“the son”) and TEERANAI PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA (“the father,” recently deceased) , and Defendant JAMES PATRICK BROGAN, by and through their respective counsel of record, and herein stipulate, agree and make joint application to extend the discovery perio d for nine (9) months. The extension is to allow time for an estate to be established on behalf of Plaintiff TEERANAI PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA, who is believed to have died on January 3, 2024. … … …
I.
*2 INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a motor vehicle collision on May 6, 2022. Plaintiffs' filed their Complaint in the District court of Clark County, Nevada on March 1, 2023. Defendant JAMES PATRICK BROGAN removed this matter to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on May 12, 2023. Pursuant to the Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order filed on September 27, 2023, discovery is currently set to close on May 15, 2024. Dispositive motions must be filed no later than June 14, 2024, and the Joint Pretrial Order must be filed by July 15, 2024, if no dispositive motions are filed or 30 days after dispositive motions are filed.
The parties have just learned of the death of Plaintiff TEERANAI PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA (“the father”), who passed away in January, 2024. Due to the death of Plaintiff TEERANAI PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA, and the time required to establish an estate and petition the probate court for an appointment of a special administrator, and then then conduct discovery; the parties have agreed to extend the close of discovery deadline by nine (9) months.
II.
DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 1. Plaintiffs served their initial Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production to Defendant on November 9, 2023; 2. Defendant James Patrick Brogan served his initial Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production to Plaintiffs on December 15, 2023; 3. Defendant James Patrick Brogan served his responses to Plaintiff’s Initial Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production on December 20, 2023;
4. Plaintiff Tanapong Parkawong Na Ayutdhaya (“the son”) served his responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production on January 12, 2024; 5. Plaintiffs served their First Supplement to Initial Disclosures on January 16, 2024
DISCOVERY REMAINING
III. 1. Deposition of Defendant JAMES PATRICK BROGAN (scheduled for January 24, 2024); 2. Depositions of Plaintiff TANAPONG PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA and Special Administrator for the
Estate of Plaintiff TEERANAI PARAKAWONG NA AYUTDHAYA; *3 2. Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s initial Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production 3. Depositions of Plaintiffs’ Treatment Providers 4. Subpoena of additional medical and claim history records 5. Retention of expert witnesses; 6. Depositions of expert witnesses;
IV. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE EXTENDED
Nevada District Court Local Rule 26-3 provides that the parties must show good cause for a discovery extension. A
showing of good cause includes the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. , 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause inquiry often focuses on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co. , 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). If a party cannot reasonably meet a discovery deadline despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension, then good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists. Johnson , 975 F.2d at 609.
The parties seek the extension of the discovery deadline to allow the estate to be set up for Plaintiff Teerani Parakawong Na Ayutdhaya, to allow for a special administrator to be appointed to participate in the litigation. This will all the parties to better assess the circumstances surrounding the claims investigation, and Plaintiffs’ damages, through the depositions of the parties and designated representative, percipient witnesses, Plaintiff’s treating physicians and expert witnesses.
Nevada District Court Local Rule 26-3 provides that if a request to extend a deadline is made after the subject deadline has passed then it will not be granted unless the moving party demonstrates that the failure to meet the deadline was the result of excusable neglect. In Clark v. Coast Hotels & Casinos, Inc ., the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of excusable neglect as a failure “ to take some proper step at the proper time, not because of the party's own carelessness, inattention, or willful disregard of the court's process, but because of some unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or accident or because of reliance on the care and vigilance of the party's counsel or on a promise made by the adverse party.” 130 Nev. 1164 (2014). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that “the determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on the following factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service , 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000).