Allstate Insurance Company v. Broan-Nutone, LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting 25 Stipulation to Extend Time. Discovery due by 9/4/2015. Motions due by 10/5/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/9/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 4/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Marquis Aurbach Coffing
Tye S. Hanseen, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10365
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Local counsel for Plaintiff
Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Hamilton
Jeffrey M. Zielinski, Esq.
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff – pro hac

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
[phone] FAX: [phone]

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING

11

13

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Illinois corporation
Case No.:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

2:14-cv-01062-JCM-VCF

Plaintiff,
vs.
BROAN-NUTONE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; JAKEL MOTORS
INCORPORATED, a Wisconsin corporation;
JAKEL MOTORS INCORPORATED n/k/a
and/or d/b/a JAKEL INCORPORATED, a
Wisconsin corporation; JAKEL
INCORPORATED f/k/a JAKEL MOTORS
INCORPORATED, a Wisconsin corporation;
REGAL-BELOIT CORPORATION, a
Wisconsin corporation; DOES I through X,
inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through
X, inclusive,

22
Defendants.
23
24

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES
(FIRST REQUEST)

25

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 26-4, Plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company (“AllState”),

26

by and through its attorneys of record, the law firms of Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Hamilton and

27

Marquis Aurbach Coffing, and Defendants, Broan-Nutone, LLC (“Broan”) and Jakel Motors

28

Incorporated (“Jakel”), by and through its attorneys of record, the law firm of Cooper Levenson,
Page 1 of 5
MAC:13738-001 2495269_1

1

respectfully submit the following Stipulation and Order for Extension of Discovery Deadlines

2

(First Request). This Stipulation is being entered in good faith and not for purposes of delay.

3

I.

LOCAL RULE 6-1 COMPLIANCE

4

The Parties have made no prior requests for an extension of discovery and seek only a

5

brief, 60-day extension of all deadlines to properly complete discovery. The alleged action

6

involves allegations of a product defect that requires substantial document production relative to

7

the design and history of the product from both of the defendants. The responses to the written

8

requests and the related documentation are necessary for Plaintiff to properly depose the

9

corporate designees of the defendants and are crucial for Plaintiff’s experts to author their
reports.

11

II.

12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
[phone] FAX: [phone]

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING

10

A.

13
14

LOCAL RULE 26-4 COMPLIANCE
DISCOVERY COMPLETED.
1.

The parties participated in an FRCP Rule 26(f) conference after which

they produced their initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(f).

15

2.

Plaintiff has served written discovery and document demands on both

16

defendants that seek extensive information related to the history and design of the subject

17

product. Defense counsel has required additional time to obtain such documents from both

18

parties, as well as to review and ensure that they are responsive to the subject requests. Defense

19

counsel intends to provide these responses by April 24, 2015. Plaintiff has consented to these

20

extensions in order to obtain these documents, as well so the parties could work out and execute

21

a confidentiality agreement to allow for the production of all of documents prior to conducting

22

depositions of the defendants’ corporate designees.

23

3.

The Defendants have served interrogatories and document demands, as

24

well as extensive requests for admissions on Plaintiff. Plaintiff has requested an additional week

25

to respond to these demands. Plaintiff intends to provide responses by April 24, 2015.

26

4.

The parties are in the process of scheduling a series of depositions for

27

mid-May that will result in the completion of the key fact witness depositions needed in this

28

case.
Page 2 of 5
MAC:13738-001 2495269_1

1

5.

To date, the parties have cooperated with one another and are working

2

diligently to meet all deadlines.

3

B.

4

The parties agree that the subject litigation is expert intensive. As a result, the document

5

production and the expert discovery phase are the most crucial aspects of the case. Once

6

document production is completed on April 24, 2015, the parties can proceed with the key fact

7

witness depositions that the parties intend to conduct in May.

8

requested are the corporate designees of Broan and Jakel, Kelly Von Eberstien (AllState’s

9

insured) and the local fire official. The parties hope to complete these key fact depositions over

10

DISCOVERY REMAINING.

The depositions currently being

the course of several consecutive days.
Upon completion of fact witness depositions, which may ultimately include a few more

12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
[phone] FAX: [phone]

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING

11

persons, the remaining discovery will be the production of expert reports and the subsequent

13

depositions of said experts.

14

immediate future in order to avoid any delays.

The parties will work on scheduling these depositions in the

15
16

C.

REASONS WHY DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED, GOOD CAUSE,
AND EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.

17

This case involves extensive monetary damages. As a result, the parties retained experts

18

before litigation began and the experts have participated in three separate inspections and/or

19

destructive testings (both pre and post-litigation) of the fan which Plaintiff alleges caused the

20

fire. As a result of the expert discovery conducted to date, the Plaintiff has identified extensive

21

documents that need to be produced before the parties can effectively depose Defendants’

22

corporate designees and before the experts can reach their final opinions.

23

The extensive discovery requests have caused the Defendants to ask for several

24

extensions to sufficiently respond. Plaintiff has consented to these extensions as the documents

25

are crucial for Plaintiff to properly depose the corporate designees of the defendants and for

26

Plaintiff’s experts to author their reports.

27

As result, the Plaintiff has good cause to request this brief extension as it has been

28

diligently working with the parties to obtain the necessary documents needed to take the next
Page 3 of 5
MAC:13738-001 2495269_1

1

steps in discovery. Moreover, the discovery end date does not expire until July 6, 2015, which

2

means that the parties have been proactive in seeking this brief extension so that this matter can

3

progress efficiently.

requesting this extension, as the request comes 20 days prior to the deadline for Plaintiff’s expert

6

disclosures, it is clear that there is (1) no danger of prejudice to anyone as all parties are in

7

agreement with this request (2) the extension only requests an additional 60 days that should

8

have no impact on the proceedings (3) the lapse of the 21 day deadline was simply an oversight

9

that was promptly remedied and a legitimate reason, as well as good cause, to extend discovery

10

has been set forth above and (4) to date, the parties have acted in good faith throughout the

11

course of the discovery process. See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th

12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
[phone] FAX: [phone]

To the extent that the Court deems that the excusable neglect standard must be met in

5

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING

4

Cir.2000) (citing four factors in determining whether neglect is excusable: (1) the danger of

13

prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the

14

proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith).

15

Based on the above, the parties propose the below brief extension.

16

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALL REMAINING DISCOVERY.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1.

Discovery Cut-Off

Extended from July 6, 2015 to September 4, 2015.
2.

Last Day to File Motions to Amend or Add Parties

Closed.
3.

Initial Expert Disclosures

Extended from May 7, 2015 to July 6, 2015.
4.

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

Extended from June 8, 2015 to August 7, 2015.
5.

Dispositive Motions

Extended from August 5, 2015 to October 5, 2015.

27
28
Page 4 of 5
MAC:13738-001 2495269_1

1
2

6.

Joint Pretrial Order

3

The deadline to file the Joint Pretrial Order shall be extended from September 8, 2015 to
November 9
October 7, 2015. If the Parties file dispositive motions, the Joint Pretrial Order will be due 30

4

days after the Court’s entry of its decision on the dispositive motions.

5

DATED this 17th day of April, 2015.

6

NELSON, LEVINE,
HAMILTON

DE

DATED this 17th day of April, 2015.

LUCA

& COOPER LEVENSON

7
8

By:

9
10

/s/ Jeffrey M. Zielinski
Jeffrey M. Zielinski, Esq.
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff – pro hac

By:

Tye S. Hanseen, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10365
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Attorneys for Plaintiff

12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
[phone] FAX: [phone]

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING

11

/s/ Jerry S. Busby
Jerry S. Busby, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 001107
6060 Elton Avenue, Suite A
Las Vegas, NV 89107-0126
Attorneys for Defendants

13
14

April
20th
IT IS SO ORDERED this ____ day of _____________, 2015. As modified.

15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19

Submitted by:

20

NELSON, LEVINE, DE LUCA & HAMILTON

21

By:

22
23
24
25
26
27

/s/ Jeffrey M. Zielinski
Jeffrey M. Zielinski, Esq.
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff – pro hac
Tye S. Hanseen, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10365
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Local counsel for Plaintiff

28
Page 5 of 5
MAC:13738-001 2495269_1