BGC Partners, Inc. et al v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc. et al

Filing 168

ORDER re: 166 Second Amended Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 12/1/2019. Motions due by 2/1/2020. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/1/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/21/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-GWF Document 166 Filed 06/19/18 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7785
WING YAN WONG, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13622
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
300 South 4th Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
BRYAN M. STEPHANY (admitted pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
[e-mail]
KEITH KOBYLKA (admitted pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Avison Young (Canada) Inc.; Avison Young (USA) Inc.; Avison
Young-Nevada, LLC; Mark Rose and Joseph Kupiec

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

BGC PARTNERS, INC., G&E ACQUISITION
COMPANY, LLC, and BGC REAL ESTATE OF
NEVADA, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
AVISON YOUNG (CANADA) INC., AVISON
YOUNG (USA) INC., AVISON YOUNG NEVADA, LLC, MARK ROSE, THE NEVADA
COMMERCIAL GROUP, JOHN PINJUV, and
JOSEPH KUPIEC, DOES 1 through 5; and ROE
BUSINESS ENTITIES 6 through 10,

28
4814-7940-4619.5

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-GWF

SECOND AMENDED DISCOVERY
PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER
SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW
REQUESTED

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-GWF Document 166 Filed 06/19/18 Page 2 of 5

1

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), the respective parties conducted a discovery-planning

2

conference on June 22, 2017. The parties continued the conference after the Court denied the

3

parties’ proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order without prejudice on July 7, 2017. The

4

Court subsequently granted the parties’ amended proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling

5

Order on July 13, 2017. (ECF No. 94.) While the parties have conducted some preliminary

6

discovery in the form of serving initial disclosures, serving document requests, serving requests

7

for admissions, and producing some initial documentation in response to those requests, the

8

parties await the Court’s written order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss

9

filed by Defendants Avison Young (Canada) Inc., Avison Young (USA) Inc., Avison Young—

10

Nevada LLC, Mark Rose, and Joseph Kupiec to provide guidance on which claims remain so as

11

to orient the discovery process and make it as efficient as possible. To that end, the parties

12

hereby submit the following proposed Second Amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order:

13

1. Discovery Cut-Off

December 1, 2019

14

2. Joint Protective Order

July 6, 2017

15

3. Disclosure of Rule 26(a) Initial October 2, 2017
Disclosures and Asserted Claims

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

4. Document Production Deadline

February 1, 2019

5. Initial Witness List Exchange

February 28, 2019

6. Fact Depositions

March 15, 2019 – July 1, 2019

7. Motion to Amend Pleadings/Parties

May 15, 2019

8. Simultaneous Exchange of Expert October 1, 2019
Designations and Reports
9. Simultaneous Exchange of Rebuttal November 15, 2019
Expert Designations and Reports
10. Initial Status Report

October 1, 2019

11. Dispositive Motion Deadline

February 1, 2020

26
27
28

In accordance with Local Rule 26-1(a), the parties stipulate and agree that the 488-day
discovery period running from the submission of the original proposed Discovery Plan and
4814-7940-4619.5

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-GWF Document 166 Filed 06/19/18 Page 3 of 5

1

Scheduling order through the proposed discovery cut-off date of December 1, 2019, is

2

appropriate under the circumstances of this case for the following reasons:

3

(a)

This is a complex matter involving nearly a dozen parties and thirteen causes of

4

action. The parties argued the Defendants’ motion to dismiss in this case on June 9, 2017 (ECF

5

No. 84) and await a written order from the Court. Depending on that order, the parties may

6

have to conduct discovery into claims that will likely require intensive fact and expert

7

discovery, such as misappropriation of trade secrets.

8
9

(b)

In the meantime, the Court has lifted the stay of discovery and directed the

parties to initiate the discovery process, which the parties have now begun. After motion

10

practice, the Court entered a Protective Order in this matter on August 11, 2017. (ECF No.

11

104.) The parties have subsequently served initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26

12

and several discovery requests upon one another. Some limited documentation has been

13

produced to date in response to those requests.

14

(c)

The parties have also agreed on a discovery schedule. It contains a lengthier

15

deadline than typically imposed by the Court. This is due, in large measure, to the fact that,

16

depending on the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the parties anticipate the

17

need for substantial document collection and review prior to commencing oral discovery,

18

including a substantial amount of electronically stored information (“ESI”). The ESI will have

19

to be searched to locate materials relevant to this matter. This will involve negotiating an ESI

20

protocol and managing extensive electronic searches and productions. The process is expected

21

to take several months.

22

(d)

The parties estimate that, depending on the Court’s ruling on Defendants’

23

motion to dismiss, oral discovery in this case may require them to complete numerous

24

depositions based on, among other things, the potential volume of responsive documents, the

25

potential number of prospective witnesses, and the complexity of the issues involved. Some of

26

these depositions will be out-of-state and so will likely require additional time and effort to

27

complete.

28
4814-7940-4619.5

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-GWF Document 166 Filed 06/19/18 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3

(e)

It is also anticipated that extensive expert discovery will be required, including

reports and depositions.
(f)

Although the discovery schedule proposed by the parties is robust, it is

4

comparable to the discovery schedules governing litigation in other jurisdictions involving

5

similar plaintiffs and defendants. See, e.g., BGC Partners Inc., et al. v. Avison Young

6

(Canada), Inc. et al., Case No. 15 L 002186, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County

7

Department, Law Division (allowing nearly two years between the entry of the scheduling order

8

and the start of trial); BGC Partners Inc., et al. v. Avison Young (Canada) Inc., et al., Case No.

9

652669/2012, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (discovery

10

commenced in early 2014 and is currently ongoing); BGC Partners Inc., et al. v. Avison Young

11

(Canada) Inc., et al., Case No. 2015 CA 001028, Superior Court of the District of Columbia

12

(setting the deadline for mediation prior to trial approximately 16 months after the entry of the

13

initial scheduling order).

14

(g)

The parties are mindful of the Court’s desire to move the case along briskly.

15

The proposed schedule is the parties’ attempt to complete the array of tasks this case requires as

16

expeditiously as possible.

17

IT IS ORDERED that any extension of the discovery deadline will not be allowed

18

without a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend

19

discovery must be received by the court at least 21 days before the expiration of the subject

20

deadline. A request made after this date will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that

21

the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. The motion or stipulation must include:

22
23

(a)

A statement specifying the discovery completed by the parties as of the date of

the motion or stipulation;

24

(b)

A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed;

25

(c)

The reasons why the remaining discovery was not completed within the time

26
27

limit of the existing discovery deadline; and
(d)

28
4814-7940-4619.5

A proposed schedule for the completion of all remaining discovery.

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-GWF Document 166 Filed 06/19/18 Page 5 of 5

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if no dispositive motions will be filed within the

2

time specified in this order, then the parties must file a written, joint proposed pretrial order

3

within 30 days of the dispositive motion cutoff, on or before March 1, 2020. If dispositive

4

motions are filed, then the parties must file a written, joint proposed pretrial order within 30

5

days of the date the court enters a ruling on the dispositive motions.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED

7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED:

6-21-2018

11
12
13

Agreed to by:
NIXON PEABODY LLP

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI,
LLP

15

By:

By:

16

F. Thomas Hecht (pro hac vice)
Tina B. Solis (pro hac vice)
Seth A. Horvath (pro hac vice)
70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3500
Chicago, Illinois 60602

14

17
18
19
20

/s/ Seth A. Horvath

Attorneys for Plaintiffs BGC Partners Inc.,
G&E Acquisition Company LLC, and
BGC Real Estate of Nevada LLC

21
22
23

RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN
& CARROLL LLP

24

By:

25

David Carroll (Nev. Bar No. 7643)
Anthony J. DiRaimondo (Nev. Bar No. 10875)
3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy. Suite 1200

26
27

/s/ Anthony J. DiRaimondo

Attorneys for The Nevada Commercial Group
LLC and John Pinjuv

28
4814-7940-4619.5

/s/ Robert S. Larsen

Robert S. Larsen (Nv. Bar No. 10875)
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Bryan Stephany, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Attorneys for Defendants Avison Young
(Canada) Inc., Avison Young (USA) Inc.,
Avison Young–Nevada LLC, Mark Rose, and
Joseph Kupiec