Wide Voice, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P.

Filing 75

ORDER Granting Defendant's 74 Unopposed Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (First Request). Discovery due by 3/31/2017. Motions due by 5/1/2017. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 5/31/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 7/11/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MICHELLE D. ALARIE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11894
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.878.9995
[e-mail]
CHARLES W. STEESE, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
Colorado Bar No. 26924
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7643 South Ulster Street, Suite 800
Denver, Colorado 80237
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 720.200.0679
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Sprint Communications
Company L.P.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15
16
17
18
19
20

WIDE VOICE, LLC

Case No. 2:15-cv-01604-GMN-VCF

Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
L.P.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

vs.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
L.P.,
Defendant.

(FIRST REQUEST)

21
22
23

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Local Rules IA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 26-4,

24

Defendant Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”), respectfully requests that the Court

25

extend by 120 days the discovery deadlines set forth in the Second Stipulated Discovery Plan and

26

Scheduling Order, Per Order Dated February 23, 2016 (ECF No. 45). Good cause exists for Sprint to

27

request this extension: to allow the parties adequate time to complete their document productions,

28

portions of which were the subject of recent Motions to Compel filed by Sprint and Plaintiff Wide
1

1

Voice, LLC (“Wide Voice”) (ECF No. 53; ECF No. 54); to allow the parties to address additional

2

discovery disputes and file necessary discovery motions; and to accommodate the scheduling of

3

various party and non-party depositions. This is the first request by Sprint, or any party, for an

4

extension of these discovery deadlines.

1

5

The earliest discovery deadline that Sprint seeks to extend is the fact discovery cut-off date

6

(for Count V only) that is set for August 12, 2016. Therefore, this motion is timely pursuant to LR

7

26-4 as it is being filed more than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadlines.

8

On June 29, 2016, counsel for Wide Voice advised counsel for Sprint that Wide Voice would

9

assent to Sprint’s request to extend the current discovery deadlines by 120 days, therefore Sprint files

10

the instant motion as unopposed.

11

This motion is not made for the purpose of delay, but to allow the parties adequate time to

12

complete their document productions, address all discovery disputes, and to conduct all party and

13

non-party depositions.

14

extending all discovery deadlines, which have not already expired, by 120 days.

Accordingly, Sprint respectfully requests that the Court enter an order

15

Pursuant to LR 26-4, Sprint states as follows:

16

a)

17

There has already been significant progress on discovery for Count V and Sprint’s defenses

18

thereto. Both sides have served their Initial Disclosures, and have agreed to supplement those

19

disclosures as the need arises. Both sides have propounded substantial written discovery on each

20

other relevant to Count V and Sprint’s defenses thereto, including Interrogatories, Requests for

Discovery Completed:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 On November 11, 2015, the parties filed a proposed Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (“First
Scheduling Order”) (ECF No. 32) agreeing to a fact discovery cut-off date of May 13, 2016. Prior to the Court
ruling on the First Scheduling Order, the Court denied Sprint’s Motion to Partially Stay Discovery (ECF No.
31), however the Court limited discovery at this time to Count V only. See ECF No. 41. On February 23,
2016, the Court entered its Order not approving the First Scheduling Order, stating that discovery at this time
was limited to Count V only and must be completed by May 13, 2016. See ECF No. 42. On March 1, 2016,
the parties filed the proposed Second Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Per Order Dated
February 23, 2016 (“Second Scheduling Order”) (ECF No. 45), agreeing to a fact discovery cut-off date of
August 12, 2016, due to the delays in discovery caused by the intervening motion practice. The Court entered
the Second Scheduling Order on March 2, 2016, consenting to the August 12, 2016, fact discovery cut-off
date.

2

1

Admission, and Requests for Production of Documents. Sprint also subpoenaed documents from

2

non-party Free Conferencing Corporation (“Free Conferencing”). Although both sides have been

3

diligently working to respond to the discovery requests, and timely produced a significant number of

4

responsive documents, there still remains some disagreement over the scope of discovery relevant to

5

Count V and Sprint’s defenses thereto. This disagreement resulted in the filing of several discovery

6

motions in March and April, 2106, including:

7

46) to address the limitations on attorney-eye only protected documents, (2) Sprint’s Motion to

8

Compel Free Conferencing (ECF No. 53) that requested full and complete responses to several

9

categories of documents within the subpoena, and (3) Wide Voice’s Motion to Compel Sprint (ECF

10

No. 54) that requested full and complete responses to several of its discovery requests. The Court

11

heard oral argument on the discovery motions on May 18, 2016, and entered Orders on May 18, 2016

12

and May 19, 2016, addressing the discovery disputes (“Discovery Orders”). See ECF Nos. 69, 71,

13

and 72. Since those orders issued, Sprint (and it is believed that Free Conferencing) have produced

14

documents as required by the Discovery Orders.

15

(1) Sprint’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No.

b) Discovery That Remains to be Completed:

16

Despite making substantial progress with documentary discovery, both sides still need to

17

complete their documents productions. In addition, Wide Voice agreed to supplement its production

18

given that the Discovery Orders mandated production by Free Conferencing of substantially similar

19

document categories. These additional productions will take place over the month of July. However,

20

the parties disagree on a few topics concerning the scope of the Discovery Orders, with Wide Voice

21

continuing to dispute the relevancy of several of Sprint’s discovery requests. The parties have met

22

and conferred on this dispute, but to no avail. Sprint therefore plans to file a motion to compel Wide

23

Voice in the very near future.

24

In addition, once document productions near completion, both Sprint and Wide Voice intend

25

to take the depositions of several party and non-party witnesses regarding Court V and Sprint’s

26

defenses thereto. The parties have been in active discussion about these depositions and are trying to

27

coordinate a schedule to complete them in the next few months.

28

///
3

1

c)

2

Although there has been significant progress on discovery related to Count V and Sprint’s

3

defenses thereto, as addressed above and in the multiple discovery motions filed with the Court, the

4

disagreement over the scope of discovery relevant to Count V and Sprint’s defenses thereto

5

effectively stalled the production of documents and responses to other written discovery. In fact,

6

both sides found it necessary to request the Court’s intervention by way of a motion for protective

7

order and motions to compel. The Court only recently decided those motions. The parties have been

8

diligently producing documents and responding to discovery requests; however, additional time is

9

necessary to complete this process.

Reasons Why Discovery Has Not Been Completed and Should Be Extended:

10

Moreover, Sprint will be filing a motion to compel Wide Voice in the very near future. Sprint

11

does not anticipate that its motion to compel can be fully briefed and resolved within the current

12

discovery schedule. And further, once the motion is finally resolved, Wide Voice will require time to

13

comply with the Court’s decision.

14

Lastly, it is impossible to complete the necessary depositions before the August 12, 2016, fact

15

discovery cut-off. Lead counsels for both Sprint and Wide Voice have the third-week of a trial set in

16

Minnesota from August 1-4, 2016. The third-week of trial was just recently set and impacts both

17

sides alike. As such, there is not an adequate amount of time within the current schedule to take any

18

depositions, let alone all of the depositions that the parties believe need to occur.

19

d)

20

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

Proposed Schedule for Completing All Remaining Discovery:

21

A. Fact Discovery Cut-Off for Claim V: December 9, 2016 (formerly August 12, 2016).

22

B. Disclosure of Expert Witnesses: January 27, 2017 (formerly September 30, 2016).

23

C. Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses: February 28, 2017 (formerly October 31,

24

2016).

25

D. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: March 31, 2017 (formerly November 30, 2016).

26

E. Dispositive Motions: May 1, 2017 (formerly December 30, 2016).

27

F. Pretrial Order and Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures: May 31, 2017 (formerly January 30,

28

2017), but if dispositive motions are filed, 30 days after decision on the dispositive
4

1
2
3
4

motions or further order of the court.
G. Interim Status Report: January 31, 2017 (formerly October 3, 2016).
In conclusion, Sprint respectfully requests that the Court enter an order approving the
proposed discovery schedule set forth above.

5
6

Dated this 30th day of June, 2016.

ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP

7
8
9
10
11
12

By: /s/ Michelle Alarie
MICHELLE D. ALARIE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11896
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.878.9995
[e-mail]
CHARLES W. STEESE, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
Colorado Bar No. 26924
4643 South Ulster Street, Suite 800
Denver, Colorado 80237
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 720.200.0679
[e-mail]

13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Defendant Sprint
Communications Company L.P.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7-11-2016
DATED:____________________________________

26
27
28
5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.5(b), and Section IV of District of Nevada Electronic Filing

3

Procedures, I certify that I am an employee of ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, and that the

4

foregoing DEFENDANT SPRINT COMMUNCATIONS COMPANY L.P.’S UNOPPOSED

5

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES was served:

6
7
8

via electronic service through filing in the Court’s ECF system, which provides
notice to the address(es) shown below:

10

LeAnn Sanders, Esq. – [e-mail]
Seetal Tejura, Esq. – [e-mail]
Stephen Wald, Esq. – [e-mail]
Lauren J. Coppola, Esq. – [e-mail]

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff Wide Voice, LLC

9

12
13
14
15

LeAnn Sanders, Esq. – [e-mail]
Lauren J. Coppola, Esq. – [e-mail]
Attorneys for Non-Party Free Conferencing Corporation

16
17
18
19
20

Date: June 30, 2016

/s/ Jessica Myrold
An employee of Armstrong Teasdale LLP

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6