Hernandez et al v. Creative Concepts, Inc. et al

Filing 254

ORDER that the following discovery deadlines apply: Discovery due by 8/15/2013. Motions due by 9/27/2013. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/28/2013. See Order for deposition deadlines. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are allowed to s ubpoena documents from third parties. NPL will transmit to Plaintiffs an unsigned, updated release of records for Plaintiffs Ivan Madrigal and Carlos Navarrete. Plaintiffs will execute the same and transmit the executed releases to NPL within 3 wee ks. NPLs request to sequence the discovery is DENIED. The parties must file briefs regarding the deposition of NPLs corporate designee by 05/17/2013. NPL Construction Companys 253 Motion to Request a Discovery Conference is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 05/06/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5

***
6
7
8

GABRIEL HERNANDEZ, et al.,

2:10-cv-02132-PMP -VCF

9

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

10

vs.
11

CREATIVE CONCEPTS, et al.,
12

Defendants.
13

(Stipulation and Request for Revised Discovery
Plan and Scheduling Order and Identification
of Disputed Scope of Discovery Pursuant to the
Court's April 22, 2013, Order #241 (#251) and
Motion to Request A Discovery Conference
(#253))

14

Before the court is the parties’ Stipulation and Request for Revised Discovery Plan and

15

Scheduling Order and Identification of Disputed Scope of Discovery Pursuant to the Court’s April 22,

16

2013, Order #241. (#251).
Also before the court is NPL Construction Company’s (hereinafter “NPL”) Motion to Request A

17
18

Discovery Conference. (#253).

19

I.

Stipulation and Request for Revised Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#251)

20

A.

21

The parties state in the stipulation that they agree to extend the following deposition and

22

Stipulated Extended Deposition and Discovery Schedule

discovery deadlines:

23

NPL’s Disclosure of Its Rebuttal Economic Damages Expert

May 10, 2013

24

Deposition of Aida Real

May 21-22, 2013

25

Deposition of John Speidel

May 23-24, 2013

NPL’s Disclosure of Rebuttal Immigration Expert Witness

May 24, 2013

Deposition of Ricardo Pringle

May 30-31, 2013

1
2

Deposition of Chris Brelje

June 3, 2013

Depositions of Troy Ware, Andrew Pressimone,
and Guillermo Negron

June 4-6, 2013 (or a mutually
convenient time after May
31, 2013)

Deposition of NPL’s Rebuttal Immigration Expert Witness

June 7, 2013

Deposition of Michael Kemper

June 18-19, 2013

Reopened Deposition of Dan Weaklend

June 21, 2013

Reopened Deposition of Cavin Donnell

June 28, 2013

Deposition of NPL’s Rebuttal Economic Damages Expert

To be completed July 9, 10,
11, or 12 (depending upon
witness availability)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(#251). The parties agree that they will be allowed to subpoena documents from third parties. Id. The
12

parties also agree that:
13

NPL will transmit to Plaintiffs an unsigned, updated release of records for Plaintiffs Ivan
Madrigal and Carlos Navarrete whose prior releases have expired and/or were not
considered to be sufficient by the third party from whom records were sought, resulting
in the non-disclosure of records by third parties. Plaintiffs will execute the same and
transmit the executed releases to NPL within three (3) weeks of the date received by
Plaintiffs’ counsel. NPL will continue to supplement its discovery responses with any
documents it receives in response to such subpoenas duces tecum or Freedom of
Information Act requests.

14
15
16
17

Id.

18
19

In addition to the agreed upon schedule above, the following deadlines are set by the court for
the reasons set forth below:

20

Discovery Cut-Off
Dispositive Motions Deadline

22

September 27, 2013

Joint Pretrial Order

21

August 15, 2013

October
28, 2013. If
dispositive motions are filed,
the joint pretrial order is due
thirty days from the entry of
the court’s rulings on the
motions.

23
24
25

...

2

1
2

B.

Disputed Areas of Discovery

3

1.

Date for Filing Dispositive Motions

4

Defendant NPL asserts that the parties previously agreed on a dispositive motions deadline of
5

sixty (60) days after the discovery cut-off date, but that plaintiffs withdrew from that agreement and
6

reduced the period to thirty (30) days.” Id. Defendants argue that thirty (30) days is insufficient in light
7

of the number of plaintiffs and the “considerable number of claims.” Id. Plaintiffs argue that thirty (30)
8

days will provide the parties sufficient time “to review the evidence they have gathered and to file any
9

dispositive motions they may deem necessary.” Id. The court finds that a dispositive motion deadline
10

of forty-five (45) days after the discovery cut-off date is appropriate. See Federal Rule of Civil
11

Procedure 1 (stating that the Rules “should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and
12

inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”).

The dispositive motion deadline is

13

September 27, 2013.
14

2.

Follow-up Discovery to the Deposition of Juan Palomera

15

NPL argues that plaintiffs have “reneged on their prior consent to permit 40 days for NPL to
16

engage in follow-up discovery to the recent deposition of Juan Palomera,” and that the follow-up
17

discovery will be “necessarily limited and is unlikely to involve more than some limited written
18

discovery or subpoenas to third parties.” (#251). Plaintiffs assert that follow-up discovery is not
19

needed, as NPL spent two days deposing Mr. Palomera, has had “over a month to review Mr.
20

Palomera’s deposition,” and has “already obtained every documents in Mr. Palomera’s possession.” Id.
21

The court finds that permitting limited follow-up discovery regarding Mr. Palomera is warranted.
22

Within forty-five days from the entry of this order, defendants may serve up to three (3) interrogatories,
23

three (3) requests for production of documents, and three (3) third party subpoenas limited in scope to
24

follow-up discovery relating to Mr. Palomera.
25

...

3

1
2

3.

Amount and Scope of Written Discovery

3

NPL states that it does not oppose an additional period of sixty (60) days following the last
4

deposition for the parties to conduct final written discovery, but that it believes that the court should
5

place significant limitations on the amount of discovery conducted. (#251). NPL asserts that each party
6

should be permitted to serve fifteen (15) interrogatories, fifteen (15) requests for production of
7

documents, and fifteen (15) requests for admissions. Id. NPL also argues that the scope of the
8

permitted discovery should be limited to “any issues in the deposition and discovery completed between
9

May 21, 2013, and the last deposition in this case.” Id.
10

Plaintiffs argue that NPL’s proposed amount of discovery is insufficient, and that plaintiffs agree
11

to limiting the amount of interrogatories to fifty (50) and the requests for production to fifty (50). Id.
12

Plaintiffs also assert that they should be allowed an unlimited number of requests for admissions. Id.
13

Plaintiffs assert that limiting the scope of discovery to “newly discovered issues” will result in NPL
14

claiming that “any additional discovery touches on some previously discovered issue, requiring
15

[p]laintiffs to – again - come to the Court to get any discovery.” Id. Plaintiffs state that limiting the
16

scope will “unnecessarily complicat[e]” the proceedings. Id.
17

The court has a duty to implement the discovery rules to secure the “just, speedy, and
18

inexpensive determination” of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The court finds that it must limit the
19

amount of written discovery permitted to maintain this goal. Each party may serve up to twenty (20)
20

interrogatories, twenty (20) requests for production of documents, and twenty (20) request for
21

admissions. The court finds that limiting the scope of the discovery, however, will lead to more
22

discovery disputes and unnecessary delays. The scope of the written discovery is limited only as set
23

forth in Rule 26(b)(1).
24

...
25

...

4

1
2

4.

Sequencing of Written Discovery

3

NPL asserts that the parties should conduct the depositions before the parties engage in
4

additional written discovery, as that will allow the parties to focus on completing the deposition
5

schedule and then focus on the remaining written discovery. (#251). Plaintiffs argue that “[d]iscovery
6

should not be stalled until after the last deposition,” and that there “is no benefit to either party to delay
7

discovery.” Id. As stated above, the court must secure the speedy resolution of this action. See Fed. R.
8

Civ. P. 1. The action has been pending before this court since December 8, 2010 (#1), there are two
9

hundred and fifty-three (253) docket entries in this action, and no trial date is set. Bifurcating the
10

discovery at this stage in the process is not warranted and would only cause delay. NPL’s request to
11

sequence the discovery is denied.
12
13

5.

Depositions of Individuals Identified in NPL’s Last Three Supplemental
Disclosures

14

Plaintiffs assert that the parties agreed that plaintiffs may depose certain individuals identified in

15

NPL’s three (3) most recent supplemental disclosures, but that NPL now “seeks to complicate that

16

agreement.” (#251). Plaintiffs argue that NPL waited until the last moment to provide its three

17

supplemental disclosures, and that NPL’s “strategy was to “disclose” information it has known for years

18

at the very last minute in hopes that Plaintiffs would not be able to depose these individuals or seek

19

other discovery.” Id. Plaintiffs assert that they are working diligently to identify the individuals that

20

may need to be deposed. Id. NPL asserts that since plaintiffs have not yet identified the individuals

21

they wish to depose, NPL “may or may not be opposed to said depositions depending on the such things

22

as the date of disclosure, the number of depositions Plaintiffs intend to take, the subject matter of said

23

depositions, etc.” Id.

24
25

The court finds that the parties should be able to work together to resolve this issue without the
court’s intervention.

The parties must meet and confer in a good faith effort to agree upon the

5

1
2

depositions. If, after a good faith effort to do so, the parties are unable to agree, on or before May 17,
3

2013, the parties may file a joint statement providing each parties’ position.
4

6.

The Scope of Plaintiff’s Requested Deposition of NPL Corporate Designee

5

The parties state that they are “presently in disagreement over the subjects/topics that may be
6

covered in [p]laintiffs’ planned Federal Rule 30(b)(6) depositions,” and that “[t]hey also are in
7

disagreement as to the amount of time that can be devoted to depositions of these individuals.” (#251).
8

The parties assert that they “plan to fully brief this issue by way of separate motions and/or oppositions
9

thereto.” Id.

On May 17, 2013, the parties must file simultaneous briefs regarding the deposition of

10

NPL’s corporate designee. No oppositions are permitted.
11

II.

Motion to Request A Discovery Conference (#253)

12

On May 5, 2013, NPL filed a request for a discovery conference to finalize the scope and extent
13

of any additional discovery. (#253). The court finds that since this order addresses the parties’
14

discovery disputes and orders supplemental briefing, scheduling a discovery conference is not warranted
15

a this time. After the court reviews the parties’ briefs regarding the deposition of NPL’s corporate
16

designee and the joint statement filed regarding the depositions relating to NPL’s supplemental
17

disclosures, the court will determine if a discovery conference is needed at that time.
18

Accordingly and for good cause shown,
19

IT IS ORDERED that the following deposition and discovery deadlines apply:
20

NPL’s Disclosure of Its Rebuttal Economic Damages Expert

May 10, 2013

Deposition of Aida Real

May 21-22, 2013

Deposition of John Speidel

May 23-24, 2013

NPL’s Disclosure of Rebuttal Immigration Expert Witness

May 24, 2013

Deposition of Ricardo Pringle

May 30-31, 2013

Deposition of Chris Brelje

June 3, 2013

21
22
23
24
25

6

1
2

Depositions of Troy Ware, Andrew Pressimone,
and Guillermo Negron

June 4-6, 2013 (or a mutually
convenient time after May
31, 2013)

Deposition of NPL’s Rebuttal Immigration Expert Witness

June 7, 2013

Deposition of Michael Kemper

June 18-19, 2013

Reopened Deposition of Dan Weaklend

June 21, 2013

Reopened Deposition of Cavin Donnell

June 28, 2013

Deposition of NPL’s Rebuttal Economic Damages Expert

To be completed July 9, 10,
11, or 12 (depending upon
witness availability)

Discovery Cut-Off

August 15, 2013

Dispositive Motions Deadline

September 27, 2013

Joint Pretrial Order Due

15

October 28, 2013. If
dispositive motions are filed,
the joint pretrial order is due
thirty (30) days from the
entry of the court’s rulings on
the motions.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are allowed to subpoena documents from third

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

17

parties.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (#251), NPL will transmit

19

to Plaintiffs an unsigned, updated release of records for Plaintiffs Ivan Madrigal and Carlos Navarrete

20

whose prior releases have expired and/or were not considered to be sufficient by the third party from

21

whom records were sought, resulting in the non-disclosure of records by third parties. Plaintiffs will

22

execute the same and transmit the executed releases to NPL within three (3) weeks of the date received

23

by Plaintiffs’ counsel. NPL will continue to supplement its discovery responses with any documents it

24

receives in response to such subpoenas duces tecum or Freedom of Information Act requests.

25

Id.

7

1
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within forty-five (45) days from the entry of this order,
3

defendants may serve up to three (3) interrogatories, three (3) requests for production of documents, and
4

three (3) third party subpoenas limited in scope to follow-up discovery relating to Mr. Palomera.
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party may serve up to twenty (20) interrogatories, twenty
6

(20) requests for production of documents, and twenty (20) request for admissions. The scope of the
7

written discovery is limited only as set forth in Rule 26(b)(1).
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NPL’s request to sequence the discovery is DENIED.
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must meet and confer in a good faith effort to agree
10

upon the depositions of certain individuals identified in NPL’s three (3) most recent supplemental
11

disclosures. If, after a good faith effort to do so, the parties are unable to agree, on or before May 17,
12

2013, the parties may file a joint statement providing each parties’ position.
13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on May 17, 2013, the parties must file simultaneous briefs
14

regarding the deposition of NPL’s corporate designee. No oppositions are permitted.
15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NPL Construction Company’s Motion to Request A
16

Discovery Conference (#253) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as discussed above.
17

DATED this 6th day of May, 2013.
18

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

8