Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Shah, MD et al

Filing 300

ORDER granting #295 Stipulation to Extend Discovery. Discovery due by 4/15/2019. Motions due by 6/15/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DENNIS L. KENNEDY
Nevada Bar No. 1462
JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN
Nevada Bar No. 10125
JOSHUA P. GILMORE
Nevada Bar No. 11576
ANDREA M. CHAMPION
Nevada Bar No. 13461
BAILEYKENNEDY
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148-1302
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.562.8821
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants & Counterclaimant
RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D.; DIPTI R. SHAH,
M.D.; RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD.; DIPTI
R. SHAH, MD, LTD.; and RADAR
MEDICAL GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY
URGENT CARE

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14
15

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
16 ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE
17 INDEMNITY COMPANY, and ALLSTATE
FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE
18 COMPANY,

Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-CWH
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs,

19

(FIFTH REQUEST)
20

vs.

21 RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D.; DIPTI R. SHAH,
M.D.; RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD.; DIPTI
22 R. SHAH, MD, LTD.; and RADAR MEDICAL
GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY URGENT
23 CARE, Does 1-100, and ROES 101-200,
24

Defendants.
___________________________________________

25
AND RELATED CLAIMS.
26
27
28
Page 1 of 6

1

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE

2

PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY,

3

and ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (the “Allstate Parties” or

4

“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants and Counterclaimant RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D., DIPTI R. SHAH,

5

M.D., RADAR MEDICAL GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY URGENT CARE, RUSSELL J.

6

SHAH, MD, LTD., and DIPTI R. SHAH, MD, LTD. (the “Radar Parties” or “Defendants”), by and

7

through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate and agree that discovery deadlines be

8

continued in this matter by an additional one hundred ninety-four (194) days beyond the dates set

9

forth in the November 14, 2017 Order Extending Discovery [ECF No. 194].1

10

Good cause exists to extend discovery deadlines so that the parties may continue diligently

11

engaging in discovery necessary to determine all material facts related to this matter.

12

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and LR 26-4, the parties state the following:

13

A.

THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THE FOLLOWING DISCOVERY:

14

1.

Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures and Eighteen Supplements thereto;

15

2.

Defendants’ Initial Disclosures and Ten Supplements thereto;

16

3.

Plaintiffs’ First Sets of Interrogatories, First Sets of Requests for Admissions, and

17

First Sets of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants;

18
19

4.

Allstate Insurance Company’s First Set of Interrogatories, and Counterdefendants’

First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, to Radar Medical Group;

20

5.

Defendants’ First and Second Sets of Interrogatories, First Sets of Requests for

21

Admissions, and First, Second, Third, and Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents to

22

Plaintiffs;

23

6.

24

regard to one or more of the underlying bodily injury claims;2

25
26
27
28

Subpoenas Duces Tecum to eight different law firms that represented Plaintiffs with

7.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners;

1

The parties had initially discussed seeking a 180-day extension. However, doing so resulted in an initial expert
disclosure deadline of January 2, 2019—the day after New Year’s Day. As a result, the parties discussed extending
deadlines by an additional 14 days, for a total of 194 days.
2

To date, four law firms have produced responsive documents.

Page 2 of 6

1

8.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Las Vegas Radiology;

2

9.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Pueblo Medical Imaging;

3

10.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Southwood Pharmaceuticals;

4

11.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mike Smith, P.I.;

5

12.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Bobby G and Associates L.L.C;

6

13.

Subpoenas Duces Tecum to five different law firms that represent State Farm;

7

14.

Deposition of Chelci Hudson (employee of the Allstate Parties);

8

15.

Deposition of Underlying Claimant G.V.;

9

16.

Deposition of Underlying Claimant R.W.;

10

17.

Deposition of Underlying Claimant Y.W.;

11

18.

Deposition of Roxana Ayon (former employee of Radar Medical Group);

12

19.

Deposition of Edwin Favis, APRN (former employee of Radar Medical Group);

13

20.

Deposition of Dipti R. Shah, M.D. (Day 1);

14

21.

Deposition of Russell J. Shah, M.D. (Day 1);

15

22.

Deposition of Robert A. Gronauer (employee of Bobby G and Associates L.L.C.);

16

23.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to National Insurance Crime Bureau;

17

24.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to City National Bank;

18

25.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Bank of George;

19

26.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Nevada State Bank;

20

27.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to O’Bannon Anaya & Company Ltd.;

21

28.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology;

22

29.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to American University of the Caribbean;

23

30.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to California State University Long Beach;

24

31.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Evanston Hospital;

25

32.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Northwestern University Medical School;

26

33.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Rush University Medical Center;3

27
3

28

The Radar Parties’ Objection [ECF No. 278] to the April 19, 2018 Order [ECF No. 271] denying a motion to
quash or modify the academic, bank, and accountant subpoenas is pending before the Court.

Page 3 of 6

1

34.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to C & E Consulting, Inc.;

2

35.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Ernie Libman;

3

36.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Nevada State Board of Pharmacy; and

4

37.

Subpoenas Duces Tecum to fifty-five different law firms that represented one or

5

more of the underlying claimants.4

6

B.

DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED:

7

1.

Additional disclosures made by the parties as discovery continues;

8

2.

Additional written discovery requests served by the parties;

9

3.

Additional subpoenas duces tecum to third parties;

10

4.

Depositions of the parties5 and other pertinent witnesses, such as:

11

a.

Current/former employees of Defendants;6

12

b.

Underlying claimants;

13

c.

Witnesses who provided legal representation to the underlying claimants;

14

d.

Witnesses who provided legal representation to Plaintiffs;

15

e.

Current/former employees of Plaintiffs, including those who were involved

16

in adjusting the underlying bodily injury claims, members of their Special

17

Investigations Unit, and members of their corporate relations division;

18

f.

Healthcare providers who treated the underlying claimants; and

19

g.

Other persons with knowledge regarding the underlying claims and instant

20

litigation.

21

4

22

5

23
24
25
26
27
28

To date, the Insurance Companies have received 31 formal responses.

In terms of the individual depositions of Drs. Russell and Dipti Shah, on June 6, 2018, Eron Cannon, counsel
for the Allstate Parties, and Joshua Gilmore and Andrea Champion, counsel for the Radar Parties, conducted a telephonic
meet and confer related to the issue presented by the Radar Parties’ motion for protective order [ECF No. 282], which
was denied without prejudice by the Court by Order dated May 30, 2018 [ECF No. 291]. Because the parties were
unable to resolve their differences (despite good faith efforts to do so) and have reached an impasse, the Radar Parties
intend to renew their motion for protective order.
The Allstate Parties’ motion for protective order [ECF No. 281] relating to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)
deposition of Allstate Insurance Company is pending before the Court. In the interim, the Allstate Parties have identified
at least four designated representatives – Aaron Patterson, Gina Accola, Rose Tamayo, and Melissa Hanfpt – who may
be appearing for the deposition, as well as indicated that claims representatives will be presented for portions of Topic
No. 16.
6

The deposition of Fabiola Lopez-Chavez is scheduled to take place on July 17, 2018.

Page 4 of 6

1

5.

Expert Disclosures; and

2

6.

Expert Depositions.

3

C.

4

REASONS WHY THE REMAINING DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED:
There has been extensive motion practice related to this matter, with several motions still

5

pending before the Court. The parties took longer than anticipated to complete the meet and confer

6

process regarding supplemental discovery responses produced by the Allstate Parties following the

7

May 18, 2017 hearing in this matter; however, the information was needed before depositions could

8

resume and for purposes of moving forward with initial expert disclosures. On January 26, 2018,

9

the parties submitted a joint status report [ECF No. 226] indicating that they had completed that

10

process. The Radar Parties had separately requested a stay of discovery [ECF No. 224] due to a

11

pending motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 183], which stay request was denied by the Court

12

by Order dated March 23, 2018 [ECF No. 266]. The parties then promptly began to meet and

13

confer, and continue to meet and confer, regarding scheduling depositions in this matter.

14

So far, the parties have exchanged tens of thousands of pages of documents, including

15

medical files and claims file materials related to the underlying claimants, as well as obtained and

16

produced numerous documents received from third parties. The parties have taken several

17

depositions, although it will take several months to complete all remaining depositions, particularly

18

given scheduling conflicts for counsel in the upcoming months due to trials set in unrelated matters.

19

Given the significant amount of discovery to be completed in this matter (and the time

20

associated with doing so), while the parties have attempted to complete discovery in a timely

21

manner, the parties are requesting an extension of current deadlines as outlined below in order to

22

complete the extensive discovery that is anticipated in this matter.

23

D.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING THE REMAINING DISCOVERY:

24

The parties propose the following discovery deadlines:

25

Last Day to Complete Discovery:

April 15, 20197

26

Deadline for Initial Expert Disclosures:

January 15, 2019

27
7

28

194 days from Monday, October 1, 2018 is Saturday, April 13, 2019. Monday, April 15, 2019 is the next
judicial day.

Page 5 of 6

1

Deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:

March 18, 20198

2

Motions to Amend Pleadings/Add Parties:

January 15, 2019

3

Deadline to File Dispositive Motions:

June 15, 20199

4

Trial has not yet been scheduled in this matter.

5

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

6

DATED this 7th day of June, 2018.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2018.

7

McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

BAILEYKENNEDY

8
9

By:
By:

10
11
12

ERON Z. CANNON
FAIN ANDERSON VANDERHOEF
ROSENDAHL O'HALLORAN
SPILLANE PLLC
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750
Seattle, WA 98104

13
14
15
16

/s/ Dylan P. Todd
DYLAN P. TODD
TODD W. BAXTER
8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350
Las Vegas, NV 89113

/s/ Joshua P. Gilmore
DENNIS L. KENNEDY
JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN
JOSHUA P. GILMORE
ANDREA M. CHAMPION
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89148

Attorneys for Defendants & Counterclaimant

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21

DATED:

June 11, 2018

22
23
24
25
26
27

8

Although LR 26-1(b)(3) require rebuttal expert disclosures to be made 30 days after initial expert disclosures,
given the number of issues and claimants, the parties believe that 60 days is more appropriate. 60 days from January 15,
2019 is Saturday, March 16, 2019. Monday, March 18, 2019 is the next judicial day.
9

28

Although LR 26-1(b)(4) requires dispositive motions to be filed 30 days after the discovery cut-off date, given
the number of issues and claimants, the parties believe that 60 days is more appropriate.

Page 6 of 6