Grahl v. Circle K Stores

Filing 327

ORDER Granting 326 Stipulation to Extend Discovery re 316 Scheduling Order (First Request). See Order for deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 1/24/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Anthony L. Martin
Nevada Bar No. 8177
[e-mail]
Dana B. Salmonson
Nevada Bar No. 11180
[e-mail]
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1500
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

8

10
11
Wells Fargo Tower
Suite 1500, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

9

Patrick F. Hulla (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
4520 Main Street, Ste. 400
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

12
Attorneys for Defendant Circle K Stores, Inc.
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16
17
18

CHARLES GRAHL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22
23
24

Case No.: 2:14-cv-305-RFB-(VCF)

vs.
CIRCLE K STORES, INC., a foreign
corporation; DOES I through V, inclusive; and
ROE corporations I through V, inclusive,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND THE
DISCOVERY DEADLINES IN THE
AMENDED JOINT STIPULATED
DISCOVERY PLAN AND
SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

Defendants.
(First Request)

25
26

Pursuant to Local Rule (“LR”) IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and 26-4, Plaintiff Charles Grahl

27
28

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Circle K Stores, Inc., (“Circle K” or “Defendant”), by and through

1

their respective counsel of record, hereby request and stipulate to extend the Phase One discovery

2

deadlines as enumerated in the parties Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 316) one

3
4

hundred and twenty (120) days while the Parties attempt to resolve this dispute via private ADR.
The current discovery cut-off date for Phase One was January 10, 2018. (Id.) Excusable neglect

5
6
7

exists as to why this Stipulation was not filed prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline. The
parties finalized the Stipulation and Order on November 17, 2017; however, due to a clerical error
in defense counsel’s office, the Stipulation was never filed. Defense counsel realized this on

9

January 22, 2018, and immediately contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve this issue and get the

10

Stipulation on file.

11
12
Wells Fargo Tower
Suite 1500, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

8

This is the parties First Request to extend the deadlines contained in the June 15, 2017
Amended Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.1

13
To allow adequate time to prepare for and participate in meaningful settlement discussions,

14
15

the Parties agree and stipulate that the current discovery deadlines be extended while they attempt

16

a resolution of this case in its entirety. If the Parties are unable to resolve the case in its entirety by

17

February 1, 2018, the Parties would like additional time to conduct depositions as well as propound

18

and respond to written discovery. In an effort to conserve resources and in the interest of judicial

19

economy, the Parties wish to extend all discovery deadlines and allow for narrowly-focused

20
discovery for use in settlement discussions.
21
Therefore, this request for an extension of time is based upon the following:

22
23

I.

THE PARTIES’ PRIOR DISCOVERY PLANS AND SCHEDULING ORDERS

24

On January 16, 2015, the Parties submitted their initial Proposed Discovery Plan and

25

Scheduling Order, (“DPSO”) requesting a special scheduling review pursuant to LR 26-1(d).

26
27
28

1

A brief history of the Parties’ Prior Discovery Plans and Scheduling Orders is included in Section
I of this Stipulation.

2

(ECF No. 229.) The DPSO was signed on January 23, 2015. (ECF No. 230.) On July 31, 2015,

2

the parties submitted a Joint Request for Special Scheduling Review Pursuant to LR 26-1(d).

3

(ECF No. 252.) Specifically, discovery was set to close on November 12, 2015; however, the

4

Court had yet to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification. (Id.) The parties agreed that they

5

could not justify spending time or money on conducting class-wide discovery until the Motion for

6

Certification was ruled on. (Id.) A hearing on the Joint Request was scheduled for August 26,

7

2015. (ECF No. 253.) The hearing was held, and the parties were ordered to submit a new

8

proposed scheduling order within one week since the Court had also granted nationwide

9

certification at that same hearing. (ECF No. 258.)

10

On September 2, 2015, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Order to extend time for the

11

parties to submit a joint proposed DPSO. (ECF No. 260.) The Parties’ First Amended DPSO was

12
Wells Fargo Tower
Suite 1500, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

1

filed on September 4, 2015. (ECF No. 262.) The Court issued an Order on September 28, 2015

13

(ECF No. 275) that discovery deadlines could not be set in the absence of the setting an end of the

14

opt-in period. (Id.) The Court also agreed that discovery will be stayed during the opt-in period,

15

except as it relates to any outstanding discovery about which the parties agreed to meet and confer

16

regarding any disputes. (Id.) Finally, the Court Ordered that the Parties were to file a Proposed

17

DPSO within 14 days of the entry of an order setting the end of the opt-in period, including all

18

deadlines required by LR 24-1(e). (Id.)

19

On June 14, 2017, the Parties filed an Amended Joint Stipulated Discovery Plan and

20

Proposed Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 315.) The Court granted the Amended Joint Stipulation

21

Discovery Plan on June 15, 2017. (ECF No. 316.)

22

I.

DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE

23

The Parties have exchanged initial disclosures in February, 2015. Plaintiff submitted the

24

following Supplemental Disclosures: (1) First Supplemental Disclosure on February 18, 2015; (2)

25

Second Supplemental Disclosure on August 31, 2015; and (3) Third Supplemental Disclosure on

26

February 12, 2016.

27

Supplemental Disclosure on February 12, 2015; (2) Second Supplemental Disclosure on February

28

25, 2015; (3) Third Supplemental Disclosure on March 17, 2015; (4) Fourth Supplemental

Defendant submitted the following Supplemental Disclosures:

3

(1) First

1

Disclosure on September 17, 2015; (5) Fifth Supplemental Disclosure on July 29, 2016; (6) Sixth

2

Supplemental Disclosure on December 7, 2016; (7) Seventh Supplemental Disclosure on

3

December 14, 2016; (8) Eighth Supplemental Disclosure on April 12, 2017; (9) Ninth

4

Supplemental Disclosure on April 24, 2017; and (10) Tenth Supplemental Disclosure on May 26,

5

2017.
Plaintiff served his First set of Requests for Production of Documents and Revised First Set

7

of Requests for Production of Documents on February 5, 2015 and February 9, 2015. Defendants

8

responded on March 30, 2015 and supplemented its responses on May 18, 2015, May 22, 2015,

9

June 4, 2015, June 9, 2015, June 29, 2015, and January 24, 2017.
Defendant served 236 Discovery Questionnaires to Opt-In Plaintiffs on May 20, 2015 and

10
11

another 845 Discovery Questionnaires on the remaining Opt-In Plaintiffs on August 17, 2016.
Plaintiff noticed Circle K’s 30(b)(6) deposition, and took portions of that deposition on

12
Wells Fargo Tower
Suite 1500, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

6

13

December 7, 2016 and January 19, 2017.

14

II.

REMAINING DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED

15

The parties are working on identifying a narrow population of Plaintiffs to conduct

16

discovery on ahead of settlement talks, including depositions and written discovery. Plaintiffs also

17

plan to take Defendants relevant 30(b)(6) deponent depositions to assist in settlement discussions.

18

If the parties are unable to resolve the case on or before February 1, 2018, the parties plan

19

to conduct the same/similar discovery on a larger portion of the Phase One discovery Plaintiff

20

population, including depositions and written discovery it sees fit.

21

continuing with additional 30(b)(6) depositions, individual fact witness depositions, as well as any

22

later-identified written discovery.

23

III.

REASONS DISCOVERY
ORIGINAL DEADLINE

CANNOT

BE

Plaintiffs also plan on

COMPLETED

WITHIN

THE

24
The parties are attempting to resolve the case via private settlement discussions. In the
25
26

interest of judicial economy, the Parties believe that narrow and limited discovery to prepare for

27

ADR is appropriate and, should the matter not resolve, be allowed additional time to conduct the

28

remaining discovery.
4

1

IV.

REVISED PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN

2

All discovery in this case will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

3

Procedure and applicable Local Rules of this District Court. The parties propose to the Court the

4

following cut-off dates:

Phase One: The first phase of discovery will focus on a narrow population of the opt-in

7

Plaintiffs. The Parties agree that this population should consist of approximately 130 opt-in

8

Plaintiffs. In order to select this population, the parties have agreed to select ten (10) persons at

9

random from each division. This will equal seventy (70) opt-in Plaintiffs. The Parties then agree

10

that each Party would next select thirty (30) opt-in Plaintiffs. The Parties will exchange lists to

11

ensure that there are no duplicate selected opt-in Plaintiffs. The Parties agree that the selection

12
Wells Fargo Tower
Suite 1500, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]

a. Discovery Cut-off Date: The discovery cut-off deadline shall be as follows:

6

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

5

process to designate the narrow population of the opt-in Plaintiffs should take no longer than

13

approximately two weeks from the date of the Court’s Order on this Discovery Plan and

14

Scheduling Order.

15

The Parties also agree that they will conduct up to thirty (30) depositions of opt-in

16

Plaintiffs within this group. The selection of these individuals will take place as follows: after

17

receipt of the Discovery Questionnaire Responses, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s counsel will each

18

select one (1) opt-in from each of the seven (7) divisions for a total of fourteen (14) depositions.

19

Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s counsel will then each select an additional eight (8) opt-in Plaintiffs.

20

The parties do not intend to place specific limits on this phase of discovery (outside of the number

21

of opt-in Plaintiffs) as it may lead to inefficiencies, e.g. taking Plaintiffs’ and putative class

22

members depositions twice, discovery disputes regarding the appropriate scope of discovery, etc.,

23

this phase would likely include written discovery and depositions of Plaintiff and Defendant’s

24

representatives.

25

The Parties agree to conduct Phase One Discovery with a discovery cut-off deadline of

26

Thursday, May 10, 2018, 120 days after the current deadline of January 10, 2018. Upon the

27

close of Phase One Discovery, Defendant will file its Motion for Decertification.

28
5

1

Phase Two: The second phase of discovery would occur if the Court denies Defendant’s

2

Motion for Decertification. Phase Two discovery would likely entail additional discovery for use

3

at trial because the Parties would not have a final list of potential trial witnesses and these

4

witnesses may be different than the sample population subject to Phase One discovery. It would

5

include a limited amount of additional written discovery and depositions of those individuals.

6

Should the Court deny decertification, the Parties propose that they jointly submit a subsequent

7

scheduling order which includes deadlines for the remaining discovery, inclusive of dispositive

8

motions and trial twenty-one (21) days after the Court denies the motion(s) for decertification.
b.

Motion for Decertification.

10

Defendant will file its Motion for Decertification on Monday June 25, 2018, forty-six days

11

after the close of Phase One discovery (the 45th day is a Sunday). Plaintiffs will have thirty (30)

12
Wells Fargo Tower
Suite 1500, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

9

days to respond, up to and including Wednesday, July 25, 2018 and Defendant will have twenty-

13

one (21) days to Reply, up to and including Wednesday, August 15, 2018

14

c.

Interim Status Report.

15

Should the Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Decertification, the Parties propose that

16

they jointly submit an additional proposed scheduling order which includes deadlines regarding

17

the interim status report, the completion of discovery, dispositive motions, and trial twenty-one

18

(21) days after the Court denies the motion(s) for decertification.

19

regarding the close of discovery and other relevant deadlines should be entered after

20

decertification has been decided.

A new scheduling order

21

d.

Dispositive Motions.

22

Should the Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Decertification, the Parties propose that

23

they jointly submit an additional proposed scheduling order which includes deadlines regarding

24

the interim status report, the completion of discovery, dispositive motions, and trial twenty-one

25

(21) days after the Court denies the motion(s) for decertification.

26

regarding the close of discovery and other relevant deadlines should be entered after

27

decertification has been decided.

28
6

A new scheduling order

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses.2

e.

2

The expert disclosure deadline shall be Monday, March 12, 2018, sixty-one (60) days (the

3

60th day is a Sunday) prior to the discovery cut-off date of _May 10, 2018 for Phase One

4

Discovery in accordance with LR 26-1(e)(3).

5

Wednesday, April 11, 2018, thirty (30) days after the initial disclosure of experts deadline in

6

accordance with LR 26-1(e)(3). The Parties shall have until the discovery cut-off date of Phase

7

One Discovery to take the depositions of the experts. Expert discovery will be conducted in

8

accordance with applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this District

9

Court, specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and 26(b)(4), and Local Rules 26-1(e)(3).

Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made by

10

f.

11

Should the Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Decertification, the Parties propose that

12
Wells Fargo Tower
Suite 1500, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

1

they jointly submit an additional proposed scheduling order which includes deadlines regarding the

13

interim status report, the completion of discovery, dispositive motions, and trial twenty-one (21)

14

days after the Court denies the motion(s) for decertification. A new scheduling order regarding the

15

close of discovery and other relevant deadlines should be entered after decertification has been

16

decided.
g.

17
18

Pre-Trial Order.

F.R.C.P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures.

The Parties agree to include their disclosures

required by F.R.C.P. 26(a)(3) and any objections thereto in the joint pretrial order.
h.

19

Motions in Limine/Daubert Motions: Pursuant to LR 16-3(b), any motions in

20

limine, including Daubert type motions, shall be filed and served thirty (30) days prior to trial

21

unless the District Judge issues an order with a different deadline or briefing schedule.

22

Oppositions shall be filed and served and the motion submitted for decision fourteen (14) days

23

thereafter. Reply briefs will only be allowed with leave of court.

24
25
26
27
28

2

The deadline to disclose experts was November 10, 2017. The parties were in discussion as to
whether they were agreeable to staying or extending discovery and, therefore, did not file this
Stipulation ahead of the November 10, 2017 expert disclosure deadline. They did agree that they
were willing to stipulate to all new dates, inclusive of the expert disclosure deadline, if they were
unable to resolve the case. Therefore, in accordance with LR 26-4, the Parties represent that their
failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.

7

1

i.

Extensions or Modifications of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order: In

2

accordance with LR 26-4, any motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in this discovery

3

plan and scheduling order shall be received by the Court no later than twenty-one (21) days before

4

the expiration of the subject deadline.

5
6
7
8

Should the Parties need additional time in excess of this initial extension for reasons related
to settlement discussions, they reserve the right to request additional time from the Court.
Therefore, the Parties jointly request that this Court grant this request and extend discovery
as indicated in this Stipulation.

10
11
12
Wells Fargo Tower
Suite 1500, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

9
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: this 23rd day of January, 2018.

DATED: this 23rd day of January, 2018.

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. PARSONS

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

/s/ Andrew L. Rempfer
Andrew L. Rempfer, Esq.
Joseph N. Mott, Esq.
Scott E. Lundy, Esq.
10091 Park Run Dr Ste 200
Las Vegas, NV 89145-8688
Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Grahl,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated

/s/ Dana B. Salmonson
Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
Dana B. Salmonson, Esq.
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1500
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Attorneys for Defendant Circle K Stores, Inc.

13
14
15
16
17
18

ORDER

19
20
21
22
23
24

IT IS HERBY ORDERED that the Parties’ Stipulation and Order to extend discovery
one hundred and twenty (120) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the Parties will provide a Status Report to the Court
on or before February 14, 2018 alerting the Court as to whether this matter has settled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1-24-2018
Dated

28
8