Searcy v. Esurance Insurance Company

Filing 93

ORDER Granting 92 Stipulation for Extension of Time (Fifth Request). Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 5/8/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/14/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Case 2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK Document 92 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 4

1 GORDON M. PARK, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7124
2 DANIEL I. AQUINO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12682
3 MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
4 8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
5 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
6 Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
[e-mail]
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8 ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15

ROSALIND SEARCY,

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK

Plaintiff,
vs.

ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
16 DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive,
17
18

Defendants.

19
20

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DATE FOR FILING JOINT PRE-TRIAL
ORDER
(FIFTH REQUEST)1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendant Esurance Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “Esurance”), by and through its
attorneys of record, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP, and Plaintiff, by and
through her counsel of record of the Law Office of James J. Ream, hereby file this request to extend
the time for the parties to submit the Joint Pre-Trial Order. The parties hereby stipulate and agree,
1

This is the parties’ first request to specifically extend the deadline for filing the Joint Pre-Trial Order.
28 The prior requests related to discovery extensions.
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350
LAS VEGAS, NV 89113

2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK

Case 2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK Document 92 Filed 04/13/17 Page 2 of 4

1 subject to the Court’s approval, to extend the time for filing the Joint Pre-Trial Order set forth in the
2 Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 3), as amended by the January 21, 2016, Stipulation For Extension of
3 Time (Fourth Request), (Dkt. No. 57). The parties desire to extend the time for filing the Joint Pre4 Trial Order by twenty-one (21) days.
5

In accordance with the Court’s dismissal (Dkt. No. 38) of Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to

6 file an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October 16, 2015 (Dkt. No.
7 43). Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on November 9, 2015. (Dkt. No.
8 48). All discovery has been completed. Dispositive motions recently were completed, as the Court
9 issued an order granting in part and denying part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
10 No. 91) on March 17, 2017.
11

The parties are cooperative in preparing the Joint Pre-Trial Order, and have on multiple

12 occasions discussed the contents of the Joint Pre-Trial Order with reference to the Court’s recent order
13 granting in part and denying part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties have
14 differing views on which facts and claims remain relevant in the action based on the order on
15 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, but are amicably attempting to discern which facts and
16 exhibits may be admitted in the Joint Pre-Trial Order. Accordingly, the parties require further time to
17 analyze these issues and collaborate to narrow down the relevant contents of the Order.
18

1.

19

All discovery in this matter has been completed.

20

2.

21

None.

DISCOVERY COMPLETED:

DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED:

22
23
24

3.

REASONS WHY DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED AND
SHOULD BE EXTENDED:

Discovery is complete, and this request relates solely to the deadline to submit the Joint Pre-

25 Trial Order. The parties acknowledge that this request is being made within 21 days of the subject
26 deadline, and accordingly submit that good cause exists to extend the deadline. In regards to why the
27 parties require further time to prepare the Joint Pre-Trial Order, the parties required a significant
28 amount of time to analyze the impact and scope of the Court’s order on Defendant’s Motion for
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350
LAS VEGAS, NV 89113

2

2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK

Case 2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK Document 92 Filed 04/13/17 Page 3 of 4

1 Summary Judgment issued on March 17, 2017, as that order impacted the issues to be tried.
2

When the parties began discussing the contents of the Joint Pre-Trial Order, it became clear

3 that there were remaining disputes as to whether certain facts and items of evidence remained relevant
4 based on the Court’s order on the Motion for Summary Judgment. Given the importance that the
5 Court’s order placed on the order of events (for example, a finding that claims based upon actions
6 occurring prior to the filing of the UIM complaint were barred), the parties are in the process of
7 carefully reviewing the sequence and timing of facts and evidence in conjunction with the Court’s
8 order to assess what facts remain relevant. In particular, there are over 3,000 pages of claims file
9 materials and related documents disclosed in this matter that must be reviewed to ascertain
10 which items of evidence and claims remain relevant given the Court’s recent order.
11

The parties are requesting an extension of 21 days in which to perform this analysis, discuss

12 what issues may be agreed upon in the Joint Pre-Trial Order, and submit the order to the Court.
13 . . .
14 . . .
15 . . .
16 . . .
17 . . .
18 . . .
19 . . .
20 . . .
21 . . .
22 . . .
23 . . .
24 . . .
25 . . .
26 . . .
27 . . .
28 . . .
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350
LAS VEGAS, NV 89113

3

2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK

Case 2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK Document 92 Filed 04/13/17 Page 4 of 4

4.

1
2

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PLEADINGS AND COMPLETING
REMAINING DISCOVERY:

Each of the deadlines that have already expired are not affected by this stipulation.

3

A. Date for filing Pre-Trial Order: May 8, 2017 (formerly April 17, 2017, which

4

is 30 days after decision on the dispositive motion).

5

THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and request that the Court enter an order approving the

6

7 proposed schedule set forth above.
8
9
10

DATED April 13, 2017.

DATED April 13, 2017.

LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. REAM, ESQ.

MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

11

By: //s// Gordon M. Park
GORDON M. PARK, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7124
DANIEL I. AQUINO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12682
8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113

By: //s// James J. Ream
JAMES J. REAM, ESQ.
12
Nevada Bar No. 3573
333 N. Rancho, #530
13
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
14
Attorney for Plaintiff Rosalind Searcy
15

Attorneys for Defendant Esurance
Insurance Company

16
17
18
19

ORDER

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

DATE: April 14, 2017

23
24

4429748.1

25
26
27
28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350
LAS VEGAS, NV 89113

4

2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK