- Quickdraw McLaw
- 30 Comments
- 855 Views
- Federal officials lay out options for Colorado River cuts if no consensus is reached. [TNI]
- Judge blocks Nevada mine; is Thacker Pass project next? [Nevada Appeal]
- Elon Musk launches AI company in Nevada. [8NewsNow]
- Boulder City Council bumps exec salaries. [BCR]
- Eighth District Court is taking applications for ADR/Discovery Commissioner. [Clark County Courts]
Kudos to UNLV Prof. Ben Edwards, who got some attention in the Wall St. Journal regarding the Musk in NV story.
Maybe he'll run it into the ground just like he did with Twitter.
That is cuckoo. I have been having more fun/engagement on Twitter in the last year than ever before. So suck it, 1024am.
I’ve never had to block more trolls since he took over.
Then quit saying stuff that they disagree with.
Does anybody have a good referrals for attorneys licensed here who also do probate litigation in California? Or is something I should get someone local to the particular California county where things have already started?
Doug Edwards
Kim McGhee.
I missed it. Is one of the ADR/Disc Commissioners retiring? Or are they adding a 3rd?
Jay Young is resigning in May.
Jay Young is a discovery commissioner for the Family Division. I think there is a separate addition for ADR Commissioner.
No Truman and young split civil adr by department.
This is correct. They split the civil departments. Young also does discovery for Family Court.
Something is happening at Claggett's office.
what's happening?
I'll take vague posts for 100 Alex.
look @ the comments from thursday and friday
Speaking of Claggett, anyone catch him testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee that not conducting focus groups is malpractice and that they should be included in a cost award?
https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00324/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230330/-1/?fk=11442&viewmode=1 at 1:32
Something new happen there today?
End of an empire??
I got TTHHWWAAACCCKKEEDD for an awesome SNL reference?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Suck+it+Trebek
Is there a deadline to make 16.1 supplemental disclosures? I have a case where a party disclosed additional medical bills and an updated computation several weeks after the close of discovery. The past medical specials increased by over two hundred thousand. The computation of damages under the provider previously said "to be supplemented" and the bills are from treatment that occurred a year ago.
@9:56a – the deadline to make 16.1 supplemental disclosures is the close of discovery. Past that point, evidence disclosed by either party can't be used in the case other than possibly to impeach a witness or contradict evidence produced during the discovery period.
10:07a here – to add to that – imagine if just before trial the Plaintiff could disclose $200k in additional medical specials for doctors that weren't previously disclosed and you had no way to depose those doctors before trial? Or you didn't have time to even look into whether the medical procedures were related to the incident complained about?
9:56 here, that was my understanding of the deadline but I could not find specific language in 16.1 on this point.
Late disclosure of medical treatment has been an issue since 16.1 was created in 1988. Most judges are going to allow it absent a claim of extreme prejudice. Many times it is an error that it was missed. Since the pandemic it is hard to get medical records from providers in a timely fashion. To suppress the additional treatment would be unusual and harsh. Are they the same providers? Is it for the same condition? It used to be 45 days before the close of discovery which would be 75 or 78 days to conduct discovery. What about a plaintiff that is having continuing treatment up to the time of trial? Or surgeries and needing another? A plaintiff that needs on going treatment all the time. Tough situation either way.
NRCP 16.1(a)(3)(B)(1) requires such disclosures at least 30 days prior to trial "unless the court orders otherwise". I always argue that a scheduling order listing a discovery deadline is the court ordering otherwise and do a motion in limine to exclude any evidence not disclosed prior to the discovery deadline if the other party tries what you said they did. It's usually granted. NRCP requires not only supporting evidence be disclosed as pre-trial disclosures but also impeachment and rebuttal evidence. This isn't Matlock as much as some try to make it.
12:48 PM– I can't think of a judge that would keep out treating physicians records even if a technical violation. They would most likely grant a continuance and allow the defense to depose the doctors and an opportunity to provide the opinions to their expert.
4:49 Kishner would and has.
I would expect the Judge to take the safe middle road. Allow the supplemental disclosures and reopen discovery limited to it and any new issues it raises (allowing designation of needed experts/updated expert opinions if any surprises by the new information). If on the eve of trial, possible short continuance of trial date to allow the additional discovery. That remedy minimizes any prejudice to both sides, as well as, smooths any appellate issues.