Wilson v. Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors

Filing 55

ORDER Granting 53 Stipulation to Extend Discovery. Discovery due by 2/2/2016. Motions due by 3/3/2016. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/16/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/14/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

Case 2:14-cv-00362-APG-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 4

1

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. SPRETNAK
Robert P. Spretnak, Esq. (Bar No. 5135)
8275 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89123
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: bob @ spretnak.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

2
3
4
5

CLARK LAW COUNSEL PLLC
Dustin L. Clark, Esq. (Bar No. 10548)
10155 W. Twain Avenue, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89147
Telephone: [phone]
Email: dustin @ clarklawcounsel.com
Attorneys for Defendant

6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
)
NEDRA WILSON,
Case No.: 2:14-cv-00362-APG-NJK
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GREATER LAS VEGAS ASSOCIATION OF )
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
REALTORS, a Nevada non-profit cooperative )
EXTEND DISCOVERY
corporation,
)
(First Request)
)
Defendant.
)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff NEDRA WILSON and Defendant GREATER LAS VEGAS ASSOCIATION OF

20

REALTORS, a Nevada non-profit cooperative corporation, by and through their respective counsel

21

of record, do hereby stipulate and agree that the current discovery cutoff date of October 5, 2015,

22

be continued for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days up to and including February 2, 2016.

23

Although the commencement of discovery initially was stayed pending the resolution of a dispositive

24

motion, this is the first extension to the discovery period that has been requested in this matter.1

25
1

This Court previously entered an order staying the commencement of discovery. See Court
Doc. 23 (May 28, 2014). This was due to Defendant having filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety. See Court Doc. 11 (Apr. 24, 2014). Upon the Court entering its order denying the
motion in part, and granting it in part, see Court Doc. 27 (Mar. 9, 2015), the parties filed their initial
Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. See Court Doc. 39 (Apr. 8, 2015).

26
27
28
T HE

LAW

OFFICES

OF

R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K
A

PR O FE SSIO N A L

C O R P O R A T IO N

8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E
SU IT E 200
LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:14-cv-00362-APG-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 4

1

1.

DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE:

2

The parties exchanged their initial disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)

3

within the time period set forth in the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Court Doc.

4

40). Plaintiff supplemented her initial disclosures on April 30, 2015.

5

Plaintiff propounded the following written discovery:

6

(1)

7

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, on April 14, 2015, to which Defendant

responded on June 8, 2015;

8

(2)

9

Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions, on April 14, 2015, to which

Defendant responded on June 8, 2015; and

10

(3)

11

Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, on April 14, 2015, to

which Defendant responded on June 8, 2015.

12

Defendant propounded the following written discovery:

13

(1)

14

Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, on April 8, 2015, to which

Plaintiff responded on May 7, 2015; and

15

(2)

16

Defendant’s First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, on April 8, 2015,

to which Plaintiff responded on May 7, 2015.

17

Defendant served a FOIA request on the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

18

Commission on April 8, 2014.

19

2.

DISCOVERY YET TO BE COMPLETED:

20
21

P. 26(a)(1). See Court Doc. 52. The parties will now exchange additional written discovery on

23

issues directly related to the seven counterclaims. There also may be a minor amount of additional

24

written discovery on issues relating to the original complaint. The parties also may elect to serve

25

third-party subpoenae duces tecum on relevant witnesses. The parties then would undertake a

26

significant number of depositions, anticipated to be at least six to ten depositions between the two

27

parties, which would include former officials of Defendant, some of whom would not be under

28
LAW

counterclaims, the parties will need to supplement their initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

22

T HE

This Court recently granted Defendant GLVAR leave to amend its answer to add seven

Defendant’s control.

OFFICES

OF

R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K
A

PR O FE SSIO N A L

C O R P O R A T IO N

8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E
SU IT E 200
LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:14-cv-00362-APG-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 4

1

Defendant also intends to request, through a separately filed motion, which shall include a

2

discussion of excusable neglect and good cause, permission to name an expert witness on an issue

3

or issues relevant to its newly pled counterclaims.2 Plaintiff does not oppose a reasonable, additional

4

time being granted for Defendant to name an expert.

5

Defendant intends to take the deposition of Kevin Child on September 30, 2015, and Plaintiff

6

Nedra Wilson on October 5, 2015. Defendant GLVAR intends to vacate these deposition dates,

7

pending additional written discovery, should discovery be extended.

8

3.

REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED:

9

From Plaintiff's perspective, the primary reason why discovery could not be completed within

10

the initial 180-day discovery period was the uncertainty regarding Defendant’s Motion for Leave to

11

Amend Answer to Assert Counterclaim (Court Doc. 43). Defendant will soon file its revised First

12

Amended Complaint,” see Court Doc. 49-1, which will add seven counterclaims, some of which

13

Plaintiff intends to move to dismiss. Thus, the fact that these new counterclaims have just been

14

added to this matter precluded complete discovery from being conducted up to this time.

15

A 120-day extension is being requested because a 60-day extension is wholly insufficient due

16

to the nature of the issues raised in the counterclaim, and due to the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel is

17

scheduled to be out of the country on vacation from September 16 through September 28. The

18

parties are opting against requesting a 90-day extension, as that would put the close of discovery in

19

the Christmas/New Year’s Day holiday season. It is Defendant’s position, as set forth in its reply

20

in support of its Motion for Leave to Amend, the granting of the Motion for Leave to Amend does

21

not delay the proceedings because the Association’s counterclaims are substantially similar to its

22

after-acquired-evidence affirmative defense. Nevertheless, as a result of the unavailability of

23

Plaintiff's counsel during much of the remaining discovery period and the attendant scheduling

24

issues, Defendant has agreed to this stipulation.

25
26

2

Based on the standard rule that an expert disclosure deadline is set for 60 days before the
discovery cut-off, Defendant intends to ask this Court that a new expert disclosure deadline be set
for December 4, 2015, and a new rebuttal expert deadline be set for 30 days later, which would be
January 4, 2016.

27
28
T HE

LAW

OFFICES

OF

R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K
A

PR O FE SSIO N A L

C O R P O R A T IO N

8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E
SU IT E 200
LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:14-cv-00362-APG-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 4

1

4.

REVISED DISCOVERY PLAN:

2

1.

Discovery Cut-Off Date: February 2, 2016.

3

2.

Dispositive Motions: The date for filing dispositive motions shall be not later than

4

March 3, 2016, 30 days after the discovery cut-off date. In the event that the discovery period is

5

extended from the discovery cut-off date set forth in this Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery

6

(First Request), the date for filing dispositive motions shall be extended for the same duration, to be

7

not later than 30 days from the subsequent discovery cut-off date.

8

3.

Pretrial Order: The date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be not later than April

9

4, 2016, 30 days after the date set for filing dispositive motions. In the event that dispositive motions

10

are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 days after decision on

11

the dispositive motions or until further order of the court.

12

4.

Additional Extensions of the Discovery Period: The last day for the parties to file

13

their Motion and/or Stipulation to Extend Discovery shall be January 12, 2016, twenty (21) days

14

prior to the revised discovery cut-off.

15

5.

Any discovery deadline not extended in accordance with the Revised Discovery Plan

16

set forth above shall remain controlled by the Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Court

17

Doc. 40), as approved by the Court on April 9, 2015.

18

No trial date has yet been ordered.

19

DATED: September 11, 2015.

DATED: September 11, 2015.

20

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. SPRETNAK

CLARK LAW COUNSEL PLLC

21

By: /s/ Robert P. Spretnak
Robert P. Spretnak, Esq.

By: /s/ Dustin L. Clark
Dustin L. Clark, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendant

8275 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89123

10155 W. Twain Avenue, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89147

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
9/14/2015

28
T HE

LAW

OFFICES

_______________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

OF

R O BE R T P. SP RETN A K
A

PR O FE SSIO N A L

C O R P O R A T IO N

8275 S. EA ST E R N AV E N U E
SU IT E 200
LA S VE G A S , NE V A D A 89123

Page 4 of 4