Bridge v. Credit One Financial

Filing 84

ORDER Granting 82 Stipulation Extending Time to Provide Class Certification Expert Disclosures. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/2/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 82 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3

JOINTLY SUBMITTED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

William Bridge, on behalf of himself and all :
others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
vs.
:
:
Credit One Financial, a Nevada Corporation :
d/b/a Credit One Bank, N.A.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
_______________________________________ :

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
PROVIDE CLASS CERTIFICATION
EXPERT DISCLOSURES
(First Request)

12
13
14

The parties to the above-captioned action hereby jointly submit for the Court’s approval the
following Stipulation and Proposed Order:

15

WHEREAS, on December 30, 2014, the Court entered the Joint Discovery Plan and

16

Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 24) (“Scheduling Order”) establishing, inter alia, deadlines for Rule

17

26(a)(2) expert disclosures pertaining to the class certification phase of litigation;

18

WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order Amending

19

Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 47) (“Amended Scheduling Order”) establishing, inter alia, a deadline

20

of June 22, 2015 for opening Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures pertaining to the class certification

21

phase of litigation, and a deadline of July 24, 2015 for rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures

22

pertaining to the class certification phase of litigation;

23

WHEREAS, on March 31, 2015, Defendant CREDIT ONE FINANCIAL d/b/a CREDIT

24

ONE BANK, N.A. (“Defendant”) filed a Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 63) pertaining to

25

Plaintiff WILLIAM BRIDGE’s (“Plaintiff”) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or

26

Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises served on NCO Financial Systems;

27

WHEREAS, to date, the parties have engaged in the following discovery: (a) the parties

28

have served Initial Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and Defendant has served five
1

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 82 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 4

1

supplemental Initial Disclosures; (b) Plaintiff has served Responses and Objections to Defendant’s

2

First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories; (c)

3

Plaintiff has produced approximately 250 pages of material in response to Defendant’s First Set of

4

Requests for Production of Documents; (d) Defendant has served Responses and Objections to

5

Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; (e) Defendant has produced

6

approximately 889 pages of material in response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production

7

of Documents; (f) Plaintiff has served upon Defendant a Second Set of Requests for Production of

8

Documents and a First Set of Interrogatories, responses to which are due June 22, 2015; (g) Plaintiff

9

has deposed Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee on March 23, 2015, as well as an

10

employee noticed individually on May 20, 2015; (h) Plaintiff served a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena

11

on non-party NCO Financial Systems, Inc. (“NCOFS”) on March 12, 2015, in response to which

12

Defendant moved to quash in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Bridge v. Credit One Financial,

13

C.A. No. 15-mc-125)) on April 28, 2015; (i) Plaintiff and non-party NCOFS are presently

14

negotiating the terms of NCOFS’s production of documents in response to the subpoena, in light of

15

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s Order of May 19, 2015 denying Defendant’s motion to

16

quash; (j) Defendant served Notices of Subpoena for Documents and Deposition Testimony to the

17

Custodian of Records for Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless on February 5, 2015, March 3,

18

2015, and May 7, 2015;

19

WHEREAS, the discovery that remains to be completed includes: document production by

20

Defendant in response to certain requests in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of

21

Documents and to all requests in Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents,

22

Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, and deposition testimony of

23

additional employees of Defendant, to the extent permitted by Order of the Court on Defendant’s

24

(1) Motion to Stay Action Pursuant to the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Pending Outcome of

25

Petitions Currently Before the Federal Communications Commission (Dkt. No. 27) and (2)

26

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 63); document production by non-party

27

NCOFS; and deposition testimony of Plaintiff;

28
2

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 82 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 4

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff anticipates a potential need to file a discovery motion under Fed. R.

2

Civ. P. 37 pertaining to the adequacy of Defendant’s productions of documents in response to

3

Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production, in the event the parties are unable to agree on the

4

proper scope of class certification discovery;

5

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred concerning modifications to the Amended

6

Scheduling Order in light of the progress of discovery to date, and the pendency of the Motion for

7

Protective Order (Dkt. No. 63);

8

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the Amended Scheduling Order’s deadlines for

9

opening and rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures should be modified to take account of the

10

progress of discovery and the pendency of the Motion for Protective Order, including that the

11

content of Plaintiff’s opening Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures depends, at least in part, on

12

Plaintiff’s access to documents and data that are the subject of the Motion for Protective Order, as

13

well as documents and data to be produced by non-party NCOFS;

14

WHEREAS, the parties agree that any extension of the opening Rule 26(a)(2) expert

15

disclosure deadline should in fairness be accompanied with a similar extension of the rebuttal Rule

16

26(a)(2) expert disclosure deadline;

17

WHEREAS, pursuant to section I.3 of the Scheduling Order, the parties filed, on February

18

19, 2015, a Joint Interim Status Report advising the Court of the parties’ agreement concerning

19

proposed modifications to the Scheduling Order;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, and

20
21

subject to this Court’s approval, agree and stipulate as follows:
1.

22

The deadline for opening Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures pertaining to the class

23

certification phase of litigation shall be continued an additional twenty-one (21) days, to July 13,

24

2015;

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
3

Case 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK Document 82 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 4

2.

1

The deadline for rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures pertaining to the class

2

certification phase of litigation shall be continued an additional twenty-one (21) days, to August 14,

3

2015.

4
5

DATED: June 1, 2015

6

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

7

SHOOK & STONE, CHTD.

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.

/s/ Leonard H. Stone
LEONARD H. STONE (NV Bar No. 5791)
MICHAEL P. O’ROURKE (NV Bar No.
6764)
7109 S. Fourth Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101

/s/ Adam J. Levitt
ADAM J. LEVITT (admitted pro hac vice)
KYLE J. McGEE (admitted pro hac vice)
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60602

8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attorneys for Plaintiff

14
15

HOLLAND & HART LLP

16

19

/s/ Brian G. Anderson
PATRICK J. REILLY (NV Bar No. 6103)
BRIAN G. ANDERSON (NV Bar No. 10500)
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89134

20

Attorneys for Defendant

17
18

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED:

23
24
25

NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: June 2, 2015

26
27
28
4