KeyBank National Association v. Nielsen et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING 17 Stipulation to Extend Deadlines. Discovery due by 2/18/2011. Motions due by 3/21/2011. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/20/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 11/24/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

KeyBank National Association v. Nielsen et al

Doc. 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
LAS VEG AS

FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. David W. Dachelet (No. 6615) 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 702.692.8099 Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, vs. FRANK NIELSEN, an individual; ROBERT H. SCHULMAN, an individual; LAWRENCE J. WINNERMAN, an individual; SANFORD B. WINNERMAN, an individual; and WW CENTENNIAL HILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant. AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant KeyBank National Association ("Plaintiff") by and through its undersigned counsel, David W. Dachelet, Esq. of the law office of Fennemore Craig, P.C., and Defendants/Counterclaimants, Frank Nielsen, Robert H. Schulman, Lawrence J. Winnerman, Sanford B. Winnerman, and WW Centennial Hills, LLC (collectively referred to as "Defendants" and with Plaintiff referred to as the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, William R. Urga, Esq. and Mindy C. Fisher of the law office of Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: /// /// /// ///
103732.1/15580.049

Case No.: 2:10-cv-00352-PMP-LRL

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (Second Request)

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
LAS VEG AS

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that certain discovery deadlines should be extended in order to allow the parties to complete adequate discovery in the above-captioned matter. The parties further stipulate and agree as to the following information required by LR 264: (a) The Discovery Completed to Date: To-date, the Parties have acted diligently in

making their disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Additionally, Defendants have served and Plaintiff has responded to written discovery requests in the form of Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Furthermore, the Parties have made their initial and rebuttal expert disclosures pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). Recently, following an extensive search of its electronic records, Plaintiff has provided its undersigned counsel with nearly 12GB of electronic data, estimated at approximately 20,000 documents (the actual number of documents and pages of documentation is currently unknown) which must be reviewed for relevancy, bates stamped, a privilege log prepared, if necessary, and produced in this case. Such documentation will undoubtedly also be responsive to the written discovery already propounded by Defendants and, as such, Plaintiffs' responses to such written discovery will need to be supplemented. Furthermore, counsel for the Parties have expressed a desire to conduct depositions in this case. The Parties would like to have an opportunity to produce and review all relevant documents before conducting depositions in this case. Given the volume of documentation to be produced and the intervening holiday season, however, the Parties agree that they are unable to do so in the time currently remaining for discovery. (b) The Discovery To Be Completed: The Parties anticipate they will further

supplement their production of documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), may exchange further written discovery, and will conduct the depositions of the parties and identified experts. (c) Reason for Delay: As indicated above, Plaintiff has provided its counsel with a

very large volume of data to review and produce in this case. Such documentation may also be responsive to written discovery already propounded by Defendants and, as such, Plaintiffs' responses will need to be supplemented. Although the parties recently entered a stipulation for a short, one-week extension of discovery, the sheer volume of the electronic data provided to its
103732.1/15580.049

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
LAS VEG AS

counsel was not yet apparent. Moreover, there has been some difficulty in converting the data provided by Plaintiff to its counsel into a format that can be easily reviewed and produced. Counsel for Plaintiff anticipates receiving the data in a reviewable format in the next week. Once it is received, counsel for Plaintiff requires additional time to review, organize, and prepare such data for production. As this Court may be able to imagine, reviewing somewhere in the Furthermore, such

neighborhood of 20,000 documents will take a fair amount of time.

documentation will need to be reviewed prior to conducting depositions in this case. Accordingly, the Parties require a second extension of discovery to produce all relevant documents, review all produced documents, exchange further written discovery if necessary, and conduct depositions in this case. (d) Proposed Schedule for Completing all Remaining Discovery: The Parties submit

that in light of the above, good cause exists to extend the discovery in this case as follows: Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Discovery Cut-Off CLOSED February 18, 2011 (currently December 13, 2010)

/// /// ///

103732.1/15580.049

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
LAS VEG AS

Last Day to File Dispositive Motions

March 21, 2011 (currently January 12, 2011) April 20, 2011 (currently February 11, 2011) DATED this 22nd day of November, 2010.

Deadline to File Pretrial Order

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2010. FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.

JOLLEY URGA WIRTH WOODBURY & STANDISH
By: : /s/ Mindy C. Fisher William R. Urga (No. 1195) Mindy C. Fisher (No. 11121) 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Wells Fargo Tower, Sixteenth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimants FRANK NIELSEN, ROBERT H. SCHULMAN, LAWRENCE J. WINNERMAN, SANFORD B. WINNERMAN, and WW CENTENNIAL HILLS, LLC

By: /s/ David W. Dachelet David W. Dachelet (No. 6615) 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. 24th DATED this _____ day of ___N________________, 2010. _ ovember

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

103732.1/15580.049

-4-