STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST)

SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(e)

CARL W. HOFFMAN, District Judge.

Defendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY ("State Farm"), and Plaintiff, KEVIN DERRICK ("Plaintiff"), by and through their respective counsel, and pursuant to Local Rule 26-4, stipulate to modify their discovery plan as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada on February 12, 2018. State Farm removed said case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on March 20, 2018 (ECF No. 1).

2. The parties held their F.R.C.P. 26 conference on April 18, 2018, and in compliance with F.R.C.P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(e) filed their initial Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order on April 23, 2018 (ECF No. 12).

3. On April 24, 2018, the Magistrate established the following discovery plan (ECF No. 12):

4. In compliance with Local Rule 26-4, the parties provide the following information regarding the discovery status:

a. Discovery Completed: The parties have exchanged initial disclosures of witnesses and documents. State Farm has served written discovery and is in the process of scheduling Plaintiff's deposition. State Farm is awaiting receipt of signed medical authorizations to begin the process of independently obtaining Plaintiff's medical records arising out of the subject accident.

b. Discovery that remains to be completed: Additional time is needed for State Farm to obtain all of Plaintiff's relevant pre and post accident medical records. Additional time is also needed for State Farm to retain an expert and to coordinate scheduling Plaintiff's Rule 35 Examination. The depositions of the parties' retained experts will also be necessary.

c. Reasons why discovery was not completed: The parties' current Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12) does not provide sufficient time to allow State Farm to obtain all of Plaintiff's medical records. With the exception of Plaintiff's emergency medical care, the majority of Plaintiff's medical treatment occurred in Wisconsin. Thus, State Farm will need to allow Plaintiff's medical providers sufficient time to comply with State Farm's subpoenas given that they are all located out-of-state. Additional time is also needed to allow State Farm to coordinate scheduling Plaintiff's Rule 35 Examination. Because Plaintiff resides in Wisconsin, State Farm will similarly need to provide Plaintiff with sufficient time to make travel arrangements in order to appear for his Rule 35 Examination. The parties will also need time to complete the depositions of the parties' retained experts. Additional time for discovery is necessary to avoid prejudice and to facilitate a fair and just investigation of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and with respect to Plaintiff's claims against State Farm.

d. Proposed schedule for completion of remaining discovery (extension of remaining deadlines by approximately 60 days):

SUBMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING COUNSEL OF RECORD:

IT IS SO ORDERED.