IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`
`Supreme Court Case No.
`
`Electronically Filed
`JOSEPH A. GUTIERREZ, Esq., STEVEN G. KNAUSS, Esq., JASON R. MAIER,
`Feb 26 2024 08:24 AM
`Esq., and MAIER GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES,
`Elizabeth A. Brown
`Clerk of Supreme Court
`
`Petitioners
`
`vs.
`
`The Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada,
`and the Honorable Susan Johnson,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondents,
`
`and
`
`RENE SHERIDAN,
` An individual,
`
`Real Parties in Interest
`
`
`APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`VOLUME IV OF IV
`
`
`Submitted By:
`JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ. (Bar No. 6653)
`JONATHAN K. WONG, ESQ. (Bar No. 13621)
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120
`Las Vegas, NV 89144
`(702) 382-1500
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`Joseph A. Gutierrez, Esq., Steven G. Knauss, Esq., Jason R. Maier, Esq., and
`Maier Gutierrez & Associates
`
`
`Docket 88161 Document 2024-06721
`
`

`

`CHRONONLOGICAL INDEX TO APPENDIX
`
`
`
`VOLUME PAGES
`I
`App 0001-0021
`I
`App 0022-0024
`
`I
`
`I
`
`App 0025-0038
`
`App 0039-0154
`
`II
`
`App 0155-0263
`
`III
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`IV
`
`App 0264-0349
`
`App 0350-0371
`
`App 0372-0381
`
`App 0382-0389
`
`IV
`
`App 0390-0438
`
`IV
`
`App 0439-0444
`
`9/26/23
`
`9/07/23
`
`DOCUMENT
`DATE
`8/31/20 Complaint for Legal Malpractice
`8/16/22 Order Granting in Part and Denying
`in Part Defendants’ Motion to
`Dismiss, and Denying Plaintiff’s
`Motion to Strike
`8/22/23 Defendants’ Motion for Summary
`Judgment
`8/22/23 Appendix Volume I of II –
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary
`Judgment
`8/22/23 Appendix Volume II of II –
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary
`Judgment
`Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of
`Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
`for Summary Judgment
`9/28/23 Defendants’ Reply In Support of
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`10/14/23 Order on Defendants’ Motion to
`Strike 1) Plaintiff’s Untimely
`Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
`for Summary Judgment; and 2)
`Improper Supplement to Initial
`Expert Disclosures; and Defendants’
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`11/09/23 Defendants’ Motion for Summary
`Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s
`Failure to Provide Damages
`Computation, or Alternatively, for
`Rule 37 Sanctions
`11/28/23 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Provide Damages Computation, or
`Alternatively, for Rule 37 Sanctions
`12/07/23 Defendants’ Reply In Support
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to
`Provide Damages Computation, or
`Alternatively, for Rule 37 Sanctions
`1/12/24 Order Denying (1) Plaintiff’s Motion
`to Alter or Amend Order; (2)
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
`Summary Judgment; (3) Defendant’s
`Motion for Summary Judgment or
`Alternatively for Rule 37 Sanctions;
`and (4) Defendants’ Motion for
`Summary Judgment Filed August 22,
`2023
`1/24/24 December 14, 2023 Recorder’s
`Transcript of Hearing Re: Plaintiff’s
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`IV
`
`App 0445-0464
`
`IV
`
`App 0465-0469
`
`IV
`
`App 0470-0510
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to N.R.A.P 25(b), I certify that I am an employee of LIPSON
`
`NEILSON P.C., and that on this 23rd day of February, 2024, I served a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
`
`MANDAMUS – VOLUME IV OF IV via the Court’s EFLEX system and by
`
`placing same to be deposited for mailing in the United States Mail, in a sealed
`
`envelope upon which first class postage was prepaid in Las Vegas, Nevada to the
`
`addressees listed below:
`
`Michael R. Mushkin, Esq.
`L. Joe Coppedge, Esq.
`MUSHKIN & COPPEDGE
`6070 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 270
`
`Attorneys for Real Party in Interest,
`Rene Sheridan
`
`Honorable Susan Johnson
`Eighth Judicial District Court
`Department 22
`200 Lewis Ave
`Las Vegas, NV 89101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Juan Cerezo
`An Employee of LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`RIS
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 6653
`JONATHAN K. WONG, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 13621
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`Phone: (702) 382-1500
`Fax: (702) 382-1512
`jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
`jwong@lipsonneilson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`RENE SHERIDAN, an individual
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`JOSEPH A. GUTIERREZ, Esq.
`STEVEN G. KNAUSS, Esq.
`JASON R. MAIER, Esq.
`MAIER GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`_________________________________
`
`* * *
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No: A-21-838187-C
`Dept. No.: 22
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Hearing Date: October 5, 2023
`Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`COME NOW Defendants MAIER GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES, JOSEPH
`
`GUTIERREZ, ESQ., STEVEN KNAUSS, ESQ., AND JASON MAIER, ESQ. (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, LIPSON NEILSON P.C., and
`
`hereby file their Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Reply”). This Reply is
`
`based upon the pleadings, papers, and records on file herein, the following memorandum
`
`28
`
`of points and authorities, and any oral argument that this Court may entertain.
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`/ / /
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`26
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`/ / /
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`Case Number: A-21-838187-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`9/28/2023 5:00 PM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`App 0372
`
`

`

`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff Rene Sheridan (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) failed to timely
`
`oppose Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and at that, it was not until after
`
`Defendants had filed their Notice of Non-Opposition that Plaintiff filed her Opposition. This
`
`alone warrants granting Defendants’ Motion. Even if her untimely Opposition were to be
`
`considered, it would still be inadequate to defeat summary judgment. The Opposition
`
`focuses its efforts in putting on a sideshow featuring the same tired arguments and
`
`accusations against Defendants regarding the confidentiality clause and the satisfaction of
`
`judgment, but fails to meaningfully address the actual thrust of Defendants’ Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment: per this Court’s order, Plaintiff needs expert testimony to survive
`
`summary judgment, and the initial experts she disclosed are so deficient – both procedurally
`
`and substantively – that Plaintiff cannot overcome summary judgment. The only counter-
`
`argument that Plaintiff offers as to her legal malpractice expert, Matthew Fortado, is that he
`
`reserved the right to supplement his report, and that her recently-served supplement is
`
`sufficient to remedy the shortcomings of his report.1 Plaintiff does not even address the
`
`deficiencies with the disclosure of Steven Istock, her purported damages expert. As set forth
`
`more fully herein, Plaintiff’s Opposition does not raise any arguments sufficient to defeat
`
`summary judgment, and Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`Defendants’ Motion Should be Granted as Unopposed Because Plaintiff
`
`28
`
`A.
`
`Failed to Timely Oppose
`
`Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on August 22, 2023. Under
`
`
`
`Eighth Judicial District Court Rule (“EDCR”) 2.20(e), Plaintiff’s Opposition was due on
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This “supplement” to Fortado’s initial report is entirely improper because it does not correct anything in the initial
`report based on information not available to Plaintiff at the time; rather, it was prepared specifically to address
`Defendants’ arguments in their Motion for Summary Judgment and thereon bolster the initial report.
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`App 0373
`
`

`

`
`
`September 5, 2023, representing 14 days from the filing of Defendants’ motion. September
`
`5th passed, and Plaintiff did not file an opposition. September 6th passed, and again, Plaintiff
`
`did not file any opposition. On September 7th, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-
`
`Opposition. It was only after this (at 5:29 p.m. that day) that Plaintiff filed her Opposition to
`
`Defendants’ Motion. Given the untimeliness of the Opposition, this Court has the discretion
`
`to grant Defendants’ Motion as unopposed. See Las Vegas Fetish & Fantasy Halloween
`
`Ball, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc., 124 Nev. 272, 278 n.15, 182 P.3d 764, 768 n.15
`
`(2008) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion for
`
`failure to oppose even when an untimely opposition was filed); see also King v. Cartlidge,
`
`121 Nev. 926, 928, 124 P.3d 1161, 1162 (2005) (finding that the plaintiff’s tardiness in
`
`opposing the defendant’s motion for summary judgment “alone was sufficient grounds for the
`
`district court to deem [the defendant’s] motion unopposed and thus meritorious.”). In line with
`
`this precedent, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment as unopposed.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opposition Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies in her Initial
`
`Expert Disclosures
`
`In their moving papers, Defendants set forth and detailed numerous deficiencies in
`
`Plaintiff’s Initial Expert Disclosures, which are succinctly as follows:
`
` Matthew Fortado, Esq: no qualifications,
`
`list of cases, and statement of
`
`compensation. Only conclusory statements in report.
`
` Patrick Cannon: Not an expert. No qualifications, list of cases, and statement of
`
`28
`
`compensation. No report.
`
` Steven Istock: No qualifications, list of cases, and statement of compensation.
`
`Only conclusory statements in report.
`
`
`
` Bennett Wasserman: No report and no statement of compensation.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`26
`
`In her Opposition, Plaintiff does not even address Istock or Wasserman. As to Fortado,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`she simply states that the deficiencies in his initial report are amended by a supplemental
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`letter Fortado prepared, attached to the Opposition as an exhibit. However, Fortado’s
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`App 0374
`
`

`

`
`
`supplement is not a proper supplement, but rather an impermissible attempt to revise the
`
`initial report in light of Defendant’s challenges to the same, and as such, should not be
`
`considered. See Luke v. Family Care & Urgent Med. Clinics, 323 F. App'x 496, 500 (9th
`
`Cir. 2009) (district court did not err in excluding untimely expert declarations where they
`
`impermissibly attempted to fix weaknesses in the initial expert report).
`
`Even if arguendo Fortado’s supplement could be considered proper, it does nothing
`
`to address the substantive deficiencies identified in Defendants’ Motion, and essentially
`
`amounts to nothing more than saying “nuh-uh, my opinions are not conclusory.” The
`
`Opposition offers nothing to change the fact that Fortado’s opinions are rebutted by the
`
`record from the underlying case. Harris v. Gates, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10663, at *8 (9th
`
`Cir. May 26, 1998) (“An expert's ‘conclusory allegations’ do not defeat summary judgment
`
`where the record clearly rebuts the inference the expert suggests.”).
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s Untimely Declaration Should be Denied
`
`To make matters worse, Plaintiff’s untimely Opposition did not contain a Rule 56(d)
`
`declaration. On September 26, 2023, in seeming recognition of this shortcoming, Plaintiff
`
`filed a Declaration in Support of Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`(the “Declaration”). The Declaration is even more untimely than the Opposition, and as
`
`such should not be considered by this Court. Western Chance #2, Inc. v. KFC Corp., 957
`
`F.2d 1538, 1544 (9th Cir. 1992) (Noting that the “district court has discretion to refuse the
`
`filing of untimely affidavits” and that “we are unable to say that the district court abused its
`
`discretion in refusing to accept those affidavits.”).
`
`Substantively, the Declaration is deficient as it does not set forth what specific facts
`
`28
`
`may be unearthed in discovery that would allow Plaintiff the ability to defend against
`
`summary judgment. Rather, it simply states that discovery has not yet closed and that the
`
`
`
`parties are scheduling depositions. Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 127 Nev. 657, 669,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`26
`
`262 P.3d 705, 714 (2011) "[A] motion for a continuance under NRCP 56(f) is appropriate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only when the movant expresses how further discovery will lead to the creation of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`genuine issue of material fact."
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`App 0375
`
`

`

`
`
`At the same time, the Declaration misrepresents the nature of a draft stipulation and
`
`order extending discovery that it attaches as Exhibit “1.” Plaintiff represents that this
`
`Exhibit is “Defendant’s request for extension of discovery and continuation of Trial.”
`
`Defendants have made no request to extend discovery. The parties previously had
`
`telephone conversations where they discussed extending discovery to allow more time for
`
`both sides to take depositions, and the draft SAO attached as Exhibit “1” to the Declaration
`
`is a document defense counsel prepared based on these conversations. Plaintiff
`
`subsequently decided against the extension when Defendants would not agree to
`
`withdraw their pending Motion for Summary Judgment, and nothing further came of the
`
`draft SAO. See e-mail Chain, attached hereto as Exhibit “N.”
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted because 1) Plaintiff’s
`
`Opposition was untimely; and 2) even if considered, Plaintiff’s Opposition fails to demonstrate
`
`that her expert disclosures are sufficient to overcome summary judgment.
`
`DATED this 28th day of September, 2023.
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`/s/ Jonathan K. Wong
`
`By:_________________________________________
`JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 6653
`JONATHAN K. WONG, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 13621
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`(702) 382-1500
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`App 0376
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to NRCP 5(b) and Administrative Order 14-2, I certify that on the 28th day of
`
`September, 2022, I electronically served the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN
`
`SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT to the following parties utilizing the
`
`Court’s E-File/ServeNV System:
`
`
`
`Rene Sheridan
`23823 Malibu Rd., #50-364
`Malibu, CA 90265
`(310) 422-9944
`rsheridan34@aol.com
`
`Pro Per Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michele Stones
`_____________________________________________
`An Employee of LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`App 0377
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT N
`EXHIBIT N
`
`App 0378
`
`App 0378
`
`

`

`Michele Stones
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Subject:
`
`Jonathan Wong
`Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:28 PM
`rsheridan34@aol.com
`RE: Sheridan v. MGA - proposed SAO extending discovery cutoff
`
`Rene –
`
`Thank you for your e-mail.
`The proposed extension of discovery has nothing to do with the Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary
`Judgment. The proposed discovery extension was intended to mutually benefit both sides; it is not some kind of favor
`that Defendants are unilaterally seeking from you, and we are more than happy to proceed under the current discovery
`deadlines if needed.
`There is no requirement that all discovery be completed before a motion for summary judgment can be considered by
`the court, and in this case, there is more than enough discovery completed to justify the motion. As such, we will not be
`withdrawing it.
`If you still have any interest in extending discovery, I am happy to consider any changes to the stipulation (and only the
`stipulation) that you believe are necessary. If this is unamenable to you, we will proceed under the current
`deadlines. Thanks.
`
`Jonathan
`
`
`
`Jonathan K. Wong, Esq.
`Lipson Neilson P.C.
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89144-7052
`(702) 382-1500
`(702) 382-1512 (fax)
`E-Mail: jwong@lipsonneilson.com
`Website: www.lipsonneilson.com
`
`
`
`*********************************************************
`CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURE: This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or
`exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to
`be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify
`the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
`attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`App 0379
`
`

`

`From: rsheridan34@aol.com <rsheridan34@aol.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:54 PM
`To: Jonathan Wong <JWong@lipsonneilson.com>
`Subject: Sheridan v. MGA - proposed SAO extending discovery cutoff
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
`Jonathan,
`I am in receipt of your email request of 18 Sept 2023, to extend discovery deadlines
`and the continuation of trial.
`
` I
`
` would agree to this arrangement with the one condition that the defendants withdraw
`defendants pending motion for summary judgment and have the hearing of
`5 October 2023 vacated.
`
`As you pointed out in your request, discovery has not been completed, therefore,
`a motion for summary judgment is premature.
`
`This would give the parties the additional opportunity to engage in meaningful
`negotiations in which to reach a settlement.
`
`Once you have agreed to and fulfilled this request, Plaintiff will agree to extend discovery
`deadlines for 90 days and continue the trial to an agreed date.
`
` am available for a call in the morning hours of 20 Sept 2023 to finalize this arrangement.
`
` I
`
`
`Rene Sheridan
`E: rsheridan34@aol.com
`M: (310) 422-9944
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Jonathan Wong <JWong@lipsonneilson.com>
`Date: September 18, 2023 at 4:00:17 PM PDT
`To: rsheridan34@aol.com
`Subject: Sheridan v. MGA - proposed SAO extending discovery cutoff
`
`
`
`
`
`Good afternoon Rene –
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to our call a couple of weeks ago where we discussed stipulating to extend the discovery cut-off,
`I have prepared the attached proposed stipulation and order to submit to the court. I figured 90 days
`would give us a comfortable buffer to work with as it would extend the discovery cutoff to January 9,
`2024. This should allow us time to comfortably conduct all necessary depositions. Please review and let
`me know if I may submit to the court with your electronic signature. NOTE: If I have calendared my dates
`correctly, I show that the last day for us to ask the court for an extension of discovery is this Wednesday,
`September 20th, so please get back to me by then. Thank you.
`
`
`
`2
`
`App 0380
`
`

`

`Jonathan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan K. Wong, Esq.
`Lipson Neilson P.C.
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120
`
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89144-7052
`(702) 382-1500
`(702) 382-1512 (fax)
`E-Mail: jwong@lipsonneilson.com
`
`Website: www.lipsonneilson.com
`
`
`
`*********************************************************
`
`CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURE: This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that
`is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified
`that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited
`and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from
`your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
`attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`App 0381
`
`

`

`
`ORDR
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 6653
`JONATHAN K. WONG, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 13621
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`Phone: (702) 382-1500
`Fax: (702) 382-1512
`jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
`jwong@lipsonneilson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`RENE SHERIDAN, an individual
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`JOSEPH A. GUTIERREZ, Esq.
`STEVEN G. KNAUSS, Esq.
`JASON R. MAIER, Esq.
`MAIER GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`_________________________________
`
`
`* * *
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Case No: A-21-838187-C
`Dept. No.: 22
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`TO STRIKE 1) PLAINTIFF’S
`UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 2)
`IMPROPER SUPPLEMENT TO
`INITIAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES;
`AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`This matter came before the Court for hearing on October 5, 2023, on Defendants’
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) and Defendants’ Motion to Strike 1) Plaintiff’s
`
`Untimely Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; and 2) Improper
`
`28
`
`Supplement to Initial Expert Disclosures on Order Shortening Time (“Motion to Strike”).
`
`Plaintiff appeared in pro per person. Defendants MAIER GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES,
`
`JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, ESQ., STEVEN KNAUSS, ESQ., AND JASON MAIER, ESQ.
`
`
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) appeared through their counsel, Lipson Neilson P.C. Having
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`26
`
`considered the record and the briefs submitted in support of and in opposition to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ MSJ and Motion to Strike, being fully informed in the premises, and good
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`cause appearing thereto, the Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS as follows:
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`Electronically Filed
`10/14/2023 7:58 AM
`
`Case Number: A-21-838187-C
`
`ELECTRONICALLY SERVED
`
`10/14/2023 7:59 AM
`
`App 0382
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The Court FINDS that Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s MSJ was untimely filed;
`
`Motion to Strike
`
`Defendants’ MSJ was filed on August 22, 2023, yet Plaintiff’s Opposition was not filed until
`
`September 7, 2023. The Court further FINDS, however, that excusable neglect exists
`
`because Plaintiff attempted to calendar the deadline, but mistakenly applied the deadlines
`
`set forth under the federal rules of procedure rather than the Nevada state court rules.
`
`
`
`The Court further FINDS that Plaintiff’s “Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Expert Witness
`
`Supplemental
`
`Information” (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Expert Supplement”) served on
`
`September 7, 2023, is not a proper supplement to her initial expert disclosures under
`
`NRCP 26(e), because it does not “include information thereafter acquired” that had “not
`
`otherwise been made known” to Plaintiff “during the discovery process or in writing,”1 but
`
`rather, was prepared specifically to address deficiencies in the initial report of Matthew
`
`Fortado set forth by Defendants in their MSJ. See Luke v. Family Care & Urgent Med.
`
`Clinics, 323 F. App'x 496, 500 (9th Cir. 2009).2 (Stating that Rule 26(e) does not “create a
`
`loophole through which a party who submits partial expert witness disclosures, or who
`
`wishes to revise her disclosures in light of her opponent's challenges to the analysis and
`
`conclusions therein, can add to them to her advantage after the court's deadline for doing
`
`so has passed.”).
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`
`
`The Court FINDS that the expert reports of Matthew Fortado, Esq., and Steven
`
`Istock, disclosed in Plaintiff’s Initial Expert Disclosures, appear to contain only conclusory
`
`28
`
`
`
`opinions;
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`
`1 See NRCP 26(e)(1).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This Court may consider federal courts’ interpretations of the corresponding federal rules because the “Nevada Rules of
`Civil Procedure are based in large part upon their federal counterparts.” Executive Mgmt., Ltd. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 118
`Nev. 46, 53, 38 P.3d 872, 876 (2002); Moseley v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 124 Nev. 654, 663,
`188 P.3d 1136, 1142 (2008).
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`App 0383
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The Court further FINDS, however, that Plaintiff’s oral motion for relief under NRCP
`
`56(d)3 to conduct the depositions of Steven Knauss and Joseph Gutierrez and, based
`
`thereon, supplement said expert reports, is sufficient to warrant relief under NRCP 56(d) at
`
`this juncture as discovery does not close until October 11, 2023.
`
`NOW THEREFORE,
`
`ORDER
`
`It is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED as to
`
`Defendants’ request to strike Plaintiff’s Expert Supplement, and Plaintiff’s Expert
`
`Supplement is hereby ordered STRICKEN;
`
`It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED as to
`
`Defendants’ request to strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment;
`
`It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s oral motion for relief under Rule 56(d) to
`
`conduct the depositions of Steven Knauss and Joseph Gutierrez is GRANTED;
`
`It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
`
`continued to November 7, 2023, to allow Plaintiff time to complete these depositions;
`
`The Court FURTHER ORDERS the following with respect to the depositions to be
`
`taken in this matter4:
`
`1.
`
`Deposition of plaintiff Rene Sheridan: It is ORDERED that, due to Plaintiff’s
`
`stated health concerns, Plaintiff be permitted to appear remotely for her deposition.
`
`However, in consideration of Defendants’ stated concerns with maintaining the
`
`integrity of the deposition and the anticipated interference by non-party Patrick
`
`28
`
`Cannon, the Court hereby imposes the following requirements and limitations:
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`3 Plaintiff’s Opposition did not include a NRCP 56(d) declaration. Plaintiff subsequently filed one on September 26,
`2023, but it did not set forth what specific facts Plaintiff believed would be uncovered through the depositions that would
`allow her to defend against summary judgment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`4 During the hearing, the parties orally raised with the Court issues and disputes pertaining to depositions.
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`App 0384
`
`

`

`a. At all times during the deposition, Plaintiff is not permitted to access any
`
`electronic devices other than the one she is using to facilitate her remote
`
`appearance;
`
`b. At all times during the deposition, defense counsel may request that Plaintiff
`
`conduct a full camera sweep of the room, and Plaintiff must comply with
`
`each and every such request;
`
`c. Non-party Patrick Cannon may not, under any circumstances, be physically
`
`present at the location at which Plaintiff is appearing for her deposition, nor
`
`communicate remotely with Plaintiff through any means during the entirety of
`
`her deposition, including but not limited to telephone calls, text messaging, e-
`
`mails, and/or instant messaging applications. Plaintiff shall be sanctioned a
`
`minimum of $500.00 for every instance that this mandate is violated;
`
`d. At all times during the deposition, Plaintiff is not permitted to wear a face
`
`mask. To the extent that Plaintiff is concerned for her health, she has the
`
`obligation to arrange for a sufficiently sterile space at which she is to conduct
`
`her remote appearance; and
`
`e. Defendants have the right to videotape the deposition.
`
`2.
`
`Deposition of Steven Knauss: The same requirements and limitations
`
`imposed upon the deposition of Rene Sheridan (including all of the requirements
`
`and limitations relating to non-party Patrick Cannon) apply equally to the deposition
`
`of Steven Knauss, with the exception that Plaintiff may wear a face mask during the
`
`deposition to address any health concerns on her part.
`
`28
`
`3.
`
`Deposition of Joseph Gutierrez: The same restrictions and limitations
`
`imposed upon the deposition of Rene Sheridan (including all of the requirements
`
`
`
`and limitations relating to non-party Patrick Cannon) apply equally to the deposition
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Telephone: (702) 382-1500 Facsimile: (702) 382-1512
`
`9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
`
`LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`26
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`
`26
`
`of Joseph Gutierrez, with the exception that Plaintiff may wear a face mask during
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the deposition to address any health concerns on her part. Additionally, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`App 0385
`
`

`

`
`