Caesars World, Inc. v. July et al

Filing 40

PROPOSED Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiff Caesars World, Inc. Second Amended Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. (Boyle, James)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

NICHOLAS J. SANTORO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 00532
[e-mail]
JAMES D. BOYLE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 08384
[e-mail]
SANTORO, DRIGGS, WALCH,
KEARNEY, HOLLEY & THOMPSON
400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone:
702/791-0308
Facsimile:
702/791-1912
David Stewart, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Georgia Bar No. 681149
[e-mail]
Nadya Munasifi, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Georgia Bar No. 156051
[e-mail]
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424
Telephone:
404/881-7000
Facsimile:
404/881-7777

14
Attorneys for Caesars World, Inc.
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

18
19

CAESARS WORLD, INC., a Florida
corporation,

20
21
22
23
24

CASE NO.:

2:11-cv-00536-GMN-CWH

SECOND AMENDED STIPULATED
DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

(Second Request)
MARCEL JULY, an individual; and OCTAVIUS
SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW
TOWER LLC, a Nevada limited liability
REQUESTED
company,
Defendants.

25
26
27
28

Pursuant to LR 26-1(d), LR 26-1(e), LR 26-4, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), Plaintiff Caesars
World, Inc. (“Caesars”), by and through its undersigned counsel of record, and Defendants

-106247-58/805701.DOC

1

Marcel July (“Mr. July”) and Octavius Tower LLC (“OT”) (collectively, “Defendants”), by and

2

through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby submit and stipulate to the following Second

3

Amended Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, and agree that the following shall

4

constitute the amended discovery plan and scheduling order in this matter.

5

On September 12, 2011, the parties filed their First Amended Stipulated Discovery Plan

6

and Scheduling Order (“Revised Scheduling Order”) requesting an extension to the then current

7

case deadlines to allow the parties time to focus on efforts to settle the case without the need to

8

engage concurrently in fact and expert discovery. The Court entered the Revised Scheduling

9

Order on September 13, 2011.

10

On October 18, 2011, the parties concluded their efforts to settle the case and returned to

11

their discovery efforts. Caesars has agreed to provide Mr. July and OT with a courtesy extension

12

until Friday, October 28, 2011, to respond to Caesars’ outstanding document requests and

13

interrogatories. However, as a result of that extension, Caesars will not have sufficient time to

14

evaluate those responses prior to the current November 15, 2011, deadline to disclose case in

15

chief experts. Accordingly, the parties request a special scheduling review by this Court and

16

request that the remaining deadlines in the case be extended by thirty (30) days. The parties do

17

not anticipate any further extensions and believe they will be able to complete discovery and trial

18

preparation pursuant to the extended deadlines set forth below.

19

I.

20

(a)

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO LR 26-1(e).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference: On June 7, 2011, the parties scheduled a

21

telephonic conference to discuss issues required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). James D. Boyle, Esq.

22

of the law firm Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney, Holley & Thompson and David J. Stewart,

23

Esq. of the law firm Alston & Bird LLP appeared for Caesars. Michael W. Sanft, Esq. of Sanft

24

Law Group appeared on behalf of Defendants. Pursuant to LR 26-1(e), the parties submit and

25

stipulate to the following deadlines and information:

26

1.

Discovery Cut-Off Date: OT answered Caesars’ Complaint on May 3,

27

2011 (Docket No. 12).

28

Complaint and asserted counterclaims on May 19, 2011 (Docket No. 15).

-206247-58/805701.DOC

Mr. July subsequently answered Caesars’

1

Because the primary defendant to this action, Mr. July, was then located in

2

The Netherlands, the parties requested that a date for completion of

3

discovery be set one hundred eighty (180) days from the date that Mr. July

4

filed his Answer and Counterclaim, to wit November 15, 2011. The Court

5

entered the Parties’ initial Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan on June

6

13, 2011 (Docket No. 21) (the “Scheduling Order”). On September 12,

7

2011, the Parties filed their Revised Scheduling Order and requested that

8

the date for completion of discovery be extended by sixty (60) days, until

9

January 16, 2012 (Docket No. 32). The Court entered the parties’ Revised

10

Scheduling Order on September 13, 2011 (Docket No. 34).

11

reasons set forth below, the parties have agreed that an additional thirty

12

(30) days is necessary to complete discovery. Therefore, the parties have

13

agreed to a revised discovery cutoff deadline of Wednesday, February

14

15, 2012 and respectfully request that this Court grant same.

15

2.

For the

Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties: Pursuant to the Revised

16

Scheduling Order, the last day to amend the pleadings and add parties was

17

August 17, 2011, which date was ninety (90) days prior to the initially

18

scheduled discovery cutoff deadline. The parties have agreed that no

19

extension to this deadline is necessary.

20

3.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures (Experts): Pursuant to the Revised

21

Scheduling Order, the last day to disclose experts is November 15, 2011.

22

Pursuant to LR 26-1(e)(3), the last day to disclose experts is sixty (60)

23

days prior to the close of discovery. The parties have agreed to a revised

24

deadline to disclose experts of Friday, December 16, 2011. Additionally,

25

pursuant to the Revised Scheduling Order, the last day to disclose rebuttal

26

experts is December 15, 2011. Pursuant to LR 26-1(e)(3), the last day to

27

disclose rebuttal experts is thirty (30) days after the initial disclosure of

28

experts. The parties have agreed to a revised deadline to disclose rebuttal

-306247-58/805701.DOC

experts of Monday, January 16, 2012.

1
4.

2

Dispositive Motions: Pursuant to the Revised Scheduling Order, the last

3

day to file dispositive motions is February 15, 2012. Pursuant to LR 26-

4

1(e)(4), the last day to file a dispositive motion is thirty (30) days after the

5

discovery cut-off date. The parties have agreed to a revised deadline to

6

file dispositive motions of Friday, March 16, 2012.
5.

7

Pretrial Order: Pursuant to the Revised Scheduling Order, the last day to

8

file the pretrial order is March 15, 2012 (errantly identified by the parties

9

in the First Amended Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order as

10

February 15, 2012). Pursuant to LR 26-1(e)(5), the last day to file a

11

pretrial order is thirty (30) days after the date set for filing dispositive

12

motions. The parties have agreed to a revised deadline, to file a pretrial

13

order, of Monday, April 16, 2012. In the event dispositive motions are

14

filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until

15

thirty (30) days after the decision on the dispositive motion or upon further

16

order by the Court extending the time period in which to file the joint

17

pretrial order. The parties shall include the disclosures required by Fed. R.

18

Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and any objections thereto, with the joint pretrial order.
6.

19

Extension of Scheduled Deadlines: Pursuant to LR 26-4, the last day

20

make a request to the extension of the discovery deadlines is twenty (20)

21

days before the discovery cut-off date. The parties have agreed to a

22

revised deadline to make any further request to the extension of discovery

23

deadlines of Thursday, January 26, 2011.
7.

24

Interim Status Report: The parties will submit the interim status report

25

required by LR 26-3 by Friday, December 16, 2011, which is sixty (60)

26

days prior to the discovery cutoff deadline.

27
28

(b)

Fed R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2) Scope of Discovery: The parties continue to agree that

discovery should extend to the full extent allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

-406247-58/805701.DOC

1
2
3
4

that discovery should not be limited to any particular issues.
(c)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) Changes: The parties stipulate that no changes should

be made to the limitations on discovery imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or LR 26-1.
(d)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(4) Schedules: At this time, the parties believe that an

5

expedited scheduled pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(4) is not necessary. The parties reserve

6

their respective rights to request relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(4).

7

(e)

Additional Information: None.

8

II.

STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY STATUS PURSUANT TO LR 26-4.

9

In accordance with the requirements of LR 26-4, the parties hereby report as follows:

10

(a)

11

Caesars has served initial disclosures as well as first interrogatories and document

12

requests on Mr. July, and first interrogatories and document requests on Octavius Tower LLC,

13

which requests are pending.

Statement Specifying Completed Discovery:

14

(b)

15

Plaintiff anticipates that it may serve requests for admission and additional interrogatories

16

and document requests on Mr. July and OT after receiving responses to its outstanding discovery

17

requests. Plaintiff further anticipates taking Mr. July’s deposition and a 30(b)(6) deposition of

18

OT. Caesars may also take depositions of any third parties identified in Defendants’ responses to

19

Caesars’ pending discovery requests. Caesars also anticipates discovery of any experts

20

Defendants identify.

Discovery Remaining to be Completed:

21

(c)

22

The parties have engaged in discussions regarding settlement but have been unable to

23

reach resolution. Settlement efforts have now concluded, and Caesars has agreed to provide Mr.

24

July and OT with a courtesy extension until Friday, October 28, 2011, to respond to outstanding

25

discovery requests from Caesars. That extension will not give Caesars sufficient time to evaluate

26

the Defendants’ discovery responses prior to the current November 15, 2011 deadline to disclose

27

case in chief experts. The parties do not anticipate any further extensions, provided all current

28

discovery deadlines are met, and believe they will be able to complete discovery and trial

Explanation as to Non-Completion of Discovery:

-506247-58/805701.DOC

1
2

preparation pursuant to the extended deadlines set forth below.
(d)

Proposed Discovery Completion Schedule: The parties agree that the proposed

3

discovery completion schedule set forth in Section I(a)(1-7) above is the appropriate timeframe

4

for completing the discovery set forth above, to wit on or before February 15, 2012.

5

(f)

Additional Information: None.

6
7

Dated: October 27, 2011.

Dated: October 27, 2011.

8

SANTORO, DRIGGS, WALCH,
KEARNEY, HOLLEY & THOMPSON

SANFT LAW GROUP

/s/ James D. Boyle
NICHOLAS J. SANTORO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 00532
JAMES D. BOYLE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 08384
SANTORO, DRIGGS, WALCH,
KEARNEY, HOLLEY & THOMPSON
400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone:
702/791-0308
Facsimile:
702/791-1912

/s/ Michael W. Sanft
MICAHEL W. SANFT, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 08245
520 South Fourth Street, Suite 320
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone:
702/384-5563
Facsimile:
702/487-5140

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

20

David Stewart, Esq.
Georgia Bar No. 681149
Nadya Munasifi, Esq.
Georgia Bar No. 156051
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424
Telephone:
404/881-7000
Facsimile:
404/881-7777

21

Attorneys for Defendants Marcel July and
Octavius Tower, LLC

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

16
17
18
19

22
Attorneys for Plaintiff Caesars World, Inc.
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED:

25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE or
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
DATED:
28

-606247-58/805701.DOC